I BX 






Hllrc -" 



hristian Science 

IN THE 

Light of Reason 



L.J.COPPAGE 



■ 








Class. 



Book 


"B* 






(opvri 


shl X" 




75 




COPYRIGHT 1 


►EPOSH 





Christian Science in the 
light of Reason 



By 

L. J. COPPAGE 




Cincinnati 
The Standard Publishing Company 



Copyright, 1914, by 
L. j. Copp&ge 






JUN 2b 1914 

Tke Standard Press 

©CLA376564 



PREFACE 

It has been said that they who dwell in the taber- 
nacle of Wisdom must banish passion, prejudice and 
sloth. May it not be said with equal propriety that 
he who abides within the domain of Science must 
renounce egotism, bigotry and inordinate partisan 
zeal, whether social, political or religious? 

No substantial and permanent contribution to 
scientific research was ever made by him who repels 
all inference not drawn from his own personal expe- 
rience, ignores all truth except that which may be 
made to serve his purpose, or exalts sentiment over 
syllogism, rhetoric over reason, or impulse over 
obvious inference in forming the convictions which 
are to determine his course in life. 

Every solution worthy to be called scientific is 
based on fundamentals ; and every problem, institu- 
tion or cult bears the same relation to its basic 
principle that a superstructure does to its founda- 
tion — destruction of the one involving the collapse 
of the other. 

It has, therefore, been the aim of the writer 
of these pages to ascertain the postulates which 
serve as bases for the so-called Christian Science 
doctrines, and subject them to the scrutiny of a rigid 
analysis. If they be found scientific, congruent and 
Scriptural, we should promptly yield assent, an- 



PREFACE 

nounce allegiance and conform conduct thereto. If 
unscientific, they should be rejected by the wise 
and learned; if unscriptural, repudiated by the de- 
vout, and if incongruous, renounced by all who lay 
claim to candor and sincerity even among the 
adherents of the cult itself. 

The considerations which move men to enter the 
field of controversy are numerous as they are 
variant. Ambition, gain, partisan zeal, inherent 
combativeness, patriotism, and, I am persuaded, love 
of truth, regardless of the simple, and sometimes 
unpopular and unattractive, garb in which she ap- 
pears. The writer hereof believes the last named 
should be the sole motive in all moral and religious 
investigations ; nor is he aware of being impelled by 
any other in undertaking this most certainly un- 
profitable and unthankful task. With the shadows 
fast lengthening toward the twilight of declining 
years, profit or preferment would seem beyond ex- 
pectation ; and the only remaining inducement would 
appear to be the solemn conviction that Truth is 
being profaned within her own temple— assaulted 
in the house of her professed friends. 

Moved solely by such consideration, this work 
should be free from offensive epithet, exasperating 
innuendo and sarcastic crimination ; and as such have 
found no place in the thoughts of the writer during 
its execution, he ventures to hope that it will be 
found void of offense, even to those who fail to 
reach his conclusions. In fact, it has been his aim, 
by clearness, courtesy and exactness, to place the 
work bevond misunderstanding, resentment or refu- 



PREFACE 

tation. If failure, rather than success, in this line 
has been attained, it is due to unwisdom, not malice. 

An objection not un frequently urged to works 
of this kind is that they are iconoclastic — negative 
and destructive in character, rather than affirmative 
— constructive. For the purpose of discrediting 
such work is sometimes invoked the maxim, "Build 
your own house, but don't pull down your neigh- 
bor's." But one is not engaged in destroying his 
neighbor's individual structure who simply addresses 
him through the ordinary channels of information, 
calling attention to the unsanitary and dangerous 
character of materials being imposed on the building 
public. 

If he kindly and courteously give his reasons for 
discrediting certain types of houses and certain 
brands of material, leaving it entirely optionary with 
each individual whether to heed or ignore his sug- 
gestions, the maxim is irrelevant, because it fails at 
the very point of analogy ; viz., imposition, constraint. 

The true scientist craves no such immunity from 
the scrutinizing eye of reason. With him the form 
of the proposition is not so important as its truth or 
falsity. 

The commands of the Bible are well varied 
between affirmative and negative — constructive and 
destructive — commendation and denunciation. Of 
the Decalogue, eight of the ten are negative. 

Abstract doctrines, however, are but barren 
idealities except as they crystallize into convictions, 
thereby determine conduct, and thus develop char- 
acter. Good and commendable character, therefore, 

5 



PREFACE 

is but the sum of good and commendable thought 
and action, which result no otherwise but through 
correct teaching — doctrine; Latin, docere, to teach. 

The importance, therefore, of both ^.rposing and 
opposing erroneous doctrines is obvious, because, if 
believed and acted on, they result in defective char- 
acter, the fruitful parent of failure, suffering and 
disaster. 

If there are better means of distinguishing be- 
tween wholesome and vicious teachings than careful, 
patient, courteous and considerate examination of 
the basis on which they rest and the relation which 
they bear to truth, it is unknown to this scribe. But 
the incentive should be rather to weigh and deter- 
mine than to discredit and denounce. We believe 
not one sound principle may be invoked in favor of 
immunity from examination because a proposition 
has been adopted as a tenet of some moral or re- 
ligious cult. 

It would place beyond the mild influence of moral 
suasion polygamy, human sacrifices, self-immolation, 
self-destruction — yea, and promiscuous concubinage, 
if practiced by religious sanction. Yet zealots there 
be who break the vials of their religious wrath on 
the defenseless head of any one who presumes to 
suggest, in the most courteous manner, the errone- 
ous, untenable, or even dangerous character of their 
dogmas. They shout, "Iconoclast! Pulling down 
his neighbor's house!" 

The word "iconoclast" is from the Greek eikon. 
an idol or image, and klastes, a breaker or destroyer. 
It is used to denote a destroyer of false dogmas as 



PREFACE 

well as false gods or idols. He is no stranger to 
either Old or New Testament history, and is almost 
invariably commended. Among the number we find 
Moses, Elijah, Christ, John the baptizer, the apos- 
tles, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, Wesley, Campbell, and 
many other ancient and modern reformers, all of 
whom abounded in didactics of the negative, de- 
structive or iconoclastic order. It was the maker, 
builder or constructor of false doctrines or idols who 
was subjected to universal divine denunciation in 
the sacred volume; such were the kings Jeroboam, 
Ahab and Manasseh, and the Ephesian silversmiths, 
to whom may be added more recent religious leaders, 
as will be shown in the body of this work. 

The true function of the modern reformer is the 
ascertainment and dissemination of truth, which also 
includes the exposure of error, especially such error 
as is destructive of the welfare of society. Any 
religious cult which is too cowardly to face, or too 
imperious to tolerate, courteous and judicious criti- 
cism constitutes a menace to free institutions. 

But of all religious cults known to this scribe, our 
Christian Science friends inveigh against destructive 
didactics with the least consistency. 

They are of all the most iconoclastic. In a sub- 
sequent part of this work we will show their 
doctrines to be destructive of the great fundamental 
fact on which the Christian religion rests ; and also 
that they leave no basis or postulate for a logical 
conclusion of any kind. 

Throughout this work the personal equation has 
been ignored. The alleged plagiarizing of the Chris- 



PREFACE 

tian Science doctrines from Dr. Quinby, the author's 
tutor ; her miraculous recovery from a fatal accident ; 
domestic infelicity consequent on her somewhat 
numerous matrimonial ventures — are all difficult to 
prove or disprove, and, in any event, tend to provoke 
rather than convince. 

For reasons not necessary to state, we have not 
capitalized the pronouns representing Deity, thus 
following the example of the King James translators 
rather than that of later scholars. 

In some instances we have inserted the word 
"Christian" or the letter "C" before the word 
"Science" in our quotations ; and we have enclosed 
it in parentheses to indicate that it originally formed 
no part of the quotation. It is so inserted to indicate 
that the word "Science" was used in the sense of 
Christian Science as set forth in the Christian 
Science text-book ; and that the author so intended, 
when capitalized, sufficiently appears from the fol- 
lowing quotations from the Christian Science text- 
book, from page 127, lines 9 to 13, and page 471, 
lines 29 to 31. Our manner of so indicating is as 
follows : 

127 : 9-13. "The terms Divine Science, Spiritual 
Science, Christ Science or Christian Science, and 
Science alone, she (the author) uses interchange- 
ably, according to the requirements of the context. 
These synonymous terms," etc. 

471 : 29, 30, 31. "Her highest creed has been 
divine Science, which, reduced to human apprehen- 
sion, she has named Christian Science." 

Let it be kept well in mind during the perusal of 



PREFACE 

this work that when the word "Science" (capital- 
ized) is used in or quoted from the Christian Science 
text-book, it was intended by the author to mean her 
system as set forth therein and by her called "Chris- 
tian Science." 

That we have sometimes used the term "Chris- 
tian Science," without the qualifying prefix, so 
called, must not be taken as a concession that the 
name is appropriate, or that its doctrines are either 
scientific or Christian. In this we are simply accom- 
modating ourself to the author's phraseology. 

These lectures were first delivered at St. Peters- 
burg, Florida, a thriving and attractive city on 
Tampa Bay, at a time when there were probably 
ten or twelve thousand tourists spending the winter 
therein; and it was at the solicitation and under the 
auspices of the Ministerial Association of said city, 
consisting of the resident and tourist clergymen 
from perhaps every State in the Union. A copy of 
the resolutions adopted by said association upon the 
occasion is hereto appended. 

May the writer of these pages venture to indulge 
the hope that they may prove helpful to some earnest 
seeker for truth along the lines therein treated. 

Crawfordsville, Indiana. L. J. Coppage. 

[From the Crawfordsville Journal, April 18, 1912.] 
MADE FINE IMPRESSION. 

MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLOR- 
IDA, PRAISES L. J. COPPAGE. 

Mr. and Mrs. L. J. Coppage have been spending 
the winter in St. Petersburg, Florida, and while 



PREFACE 

there Mr. Coppage delivered a number of lectures. 
The Independent, a daily paper published at St. 
Petersburg, recently published the following compli- 
mentary resolutions regarding three of these lec- 
tures : 

"Whereas, The Hon. L. J. Coppage has delivered 
three lectures on the subject of Christian Science, 
in a courteous and charitable spirit ; and 

Whereas, He has conclusively shown that Chris- 
tian Science is neither Christian nor scientific, nor 
self-consistent ; therefore, 

"Resolved, 1, that we, the members of the Min- 
isterial Association of St. Petersburg are greatly 
indebted to him for his clear exposition of Christian 
Science, and express the hope diat he may publish 
the same in the near future. 

"Resolved, 2, that a copy of these resolutions be 
presented to Mr. Coppage and one each to the local 
press for publication. 

"Signed by President, E. L. Frazier; signed by 
Secretary, M. H. Norton." 



10 



CONTENTS 

I. 

PAGE 

Christian Science in the Light of Reason — Is It 
Scientific ? 

Preliminary Observations — The Source of Scientific 
Knowledge — Basic Postulates of So-called Christian 
Science — Non-existence of Matter — Futility of Sensa- 
tion — Unreality of Universally Obvious Phenomena — 
Popular Objections Considered 15 

II. 

Christian Science in the Light of Revelation — Is It 
Christian ? 

So-called Christian Science Controverts the Divine 
Record — Usurps the Divine Prerogative — Repudiates 
the Divine Economy — Assumes to Revise, Reform, 
Supplement and Expurgate the Bible — Superior to 
Christ and the Apostles in Both Healing and Teach- 
ing — Repudiates Faith, Repentance, Profession, Water 
Baptism and Ignores the Lord's Supper — Treats Sin, 
Sickness and Death as Illusions — Ridicules Material 
Creation — Claims to Be or Constitute the Holy Ghost 

or Comforter 53 

11 



CONTENTS 
III. 

PAGE 

Christian Science in the Light of Its Own Pre- 
cept and Practice — Is It Consistent? 

Direct Antagonism Between Its Precept and Prac- 
tice in Commonplace Matters — Inconsistency of Its 
Psychological Doctrines — Self-contradictory Teachings 
as to Its Purely Metaphysical Character — Conflicting 
Theories as to Cause and Cure of Disease and Dis- 
abilities — Repudiates Its Own Claim to Be Based on 
the Bible — Christian Science Relating to Sex — The Ten 
Counts in Our Indictment — Conclusion 89 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT 
OF REASON— IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 



it 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 
—IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

Preliminary Observations — The Source of Scientific Knowl- 
edge — Basic Postulates of So-called Christian Science — 
Non-existence of Matter — Futility of Sensation — Un- 
reality of Universally Obvious Phenomena — Popular 
Objections Considered. 

LANGUAGE constitutes the usual means of com- 
munication between mind and mind, a single 
word suggesting or representing a single idea. 
That the sign, therefore, should correspond with the 
thing signified, or truly present to the reader or 
hearer the identical idea sought to be conveyed by 
the speaker or writer, seems obvious. Thus the 
sense in which the word "Science" is used herein 
becomes important at the very threshold of this 
investigation. 

Sciens is the present participle of the Latin verb 
scire, to know. It has been transferred into the 
English with little change, either in its structure or 
sound. In its substantive form it denotes definite, 
certain knowledge, clearly ascertained, properly 
classified, and readily demonstrable, as distinguished 
from that which is vague, speculative or conjectural. 
The mathematics of astronomy, for instance, is scien- 
tific. Its rules are definite and demonstrable, and its 
sequences uniform. The exact relative position of 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

any planet— Mars, for instance— to the earth, or any 
other of the celestial bodies, may be ascertained with 
absolute certainty by any competent astronomer with 
favorable conditions and the requisite appliances; 
and identical results would be obtained by any num- 
ber possessing the requisite skill and using due care. 
The character and purpose, however, of the lines 
which have been observed on the face of this planet 
have not, as yet, been definitely ascertained, although 
it is said they appear to bear some geometrical rela- 
tion to each other. No means of demonstrating the 
truth or falsity of the assumption that they are 
canals, designed for irrigation or navigation, have 
been discovered. To so conclude, therefore, would be 
but conjecture — speculation — hence unscientific. 

As science, therefore, includes such knowledge 
only as is definite, certain, susceptible of orderly 
classification and ready demonstration, an inquiry 
as to how such knowledge may be obtained is in 
order, and the answer is neither difficult nor complex. 
All scientific knowledge is originally acquired by 
perception, otherwise known as primary cognition, 
by which is meant contact of mind with objective 
nature by means of one or more of the five corporeal 
senses. True, knowledge may be communicated by 
testimony; but it must have been acquired by per- 
ception before it could be thus communicated. 
Scientific knowledge may also be acquired by reason 
or reflection ; but this is rather a knowledge of rela- 
tions than a knowledge of the objects themselves, 
which has already been attained by perception 
through the medium of one or more of the five 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

senses. Hence it is evident that perception or pri- 
mary cognition by means of the senses constitutes 
the basis of, and is therefore an essential element 
in, all scientific knowledge. Reason or reflection 
enables us to determine the relation of objects inter 
se, and changes in such relations may aptly be called 
phenomena; a change in the mutual relations of the 
sun, moon and earth constituting the phenomenon 
commonly called an eclipse. 

Perception or primary cognition involves three 
essentials ; viz. : 

1. A mind capable of perceiving. As every act 
presupposes an actor, no perception is possible in the 
absence of a mind capable thereof. 

2. A material object susceptible of being per- 
ceived. If no object existed, or if existent objects 
be so distant, so attenuated or so obscured by inter- 
vening matter as to be beyond the reach of sensation, 
no perception thereof would be possible. 

3. Means or media by which perception or cogni- 
tion is consummated. 

These means or media uniformly consist of the 
five corporeal senses : or, if there be other means, 
our Christian Science friends will confer a favor by 
informing us as to their kind and character. And 
for accurate perception, let it be observed, a sane 
mind, a real object and normal senses are required. 

From the foregoing considerations the following 
propositions appear self-evident ; viz. : 

1. The Existence of Matter. For if matter be 
non-existent, so must be every object composed of 
or pertaining to matter; and hence no perception 

(2) 17 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

thereof is possible. And concerning a non-existent 
object, no quality, character or condition can be 
predicated. 

2. The Integrity of Sensation. For how can 
certain, definite and demonstrable knowledge be ac- 
quired by or through absolutely futile means? No 
real knowledge can be derived wholly from a truly 
futile source. 

3. The Reality of Universally Obvious Phe- 
nomena. If matter, and hence the objects composed 
thereof, are really existent, and their character, con- 
dition, location, attributes, qualities and movements 
are accurately projected upon the mind through the 
senses, the reality of the phenomena which consist 
of changes in relation as to distance, direction and 
condition follows as a logical sequence, for a thing 
can not be real and the elements which compose it 
be unreal. Hence, to deny the reality of such phe- 
nomena is tantamount to denying the existence of 
the object, the medium through which it is per- 
ceived, or both. 

Obvious, even axiomatic, as these propositions 
appear, they are each and all repeatedly, emphatic- 
ally and categorically denied in the sole text-book of 
the cult, "Science and Health, with Key to the 
Scriptures," by the founder of the sect, Mary Baker 
G. Eddy. In fact, the whole superstructure of so- 
called Christian Science is made to rest on the exact 
antitheses of the foregoing propositions, multiplied 
in form and circumstance, but unvaried in emphasis. 
Its basic postulates, as shown in the cult text-book, 
are: 

18 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

1. The Non-existence of Matter. 

2. The Futility of Sensation. 

3. The Unreality of Phenomena Obvious to All 
Who Have Attained Normal Mentality. 

This we now proceed to show from the cult text- 
book itself, by quotations, usually verbatim, but oc- 
sionally paraphrased for the sake of brevity; in no 
case, however, perverting or distorting- the sense as 
applied to the matter under consideration. 

The book is well arranged for reference, both 
the pages and lines being numbered, and, in quoting, 
the first number will indicate the page, a colon sepa- 
rating it from the number of the line at which the 
quotation begins. A comma between numbers of 
lines or pages indicates that they are to be taken 
separately or distributively, while a dash indicates 
that all intervening matter is included. 

I. Non-existence of Matter. 

177 : 10. "Matter, or body, is but a false concept 
of mortal mind." 

261 : 21. "Matter is only a form of human relief." 

270 : 3. "Everything is matter ; everything is 
mind. Which is it?" 

270:5. Matter and mind are opposites; hence 
both can not be real. 

We know not from what school of logic the 
author of "Science and Health" graduated. Cer- 
tainly its system was defective, or her acquisition 
of its principles superficial. Reduced to a syllogism, 
the argument would appear as follows : 

Major premise. Opposites can not coexist. 

Minor premise. Mind and matter are opposites. 

19 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

Conclusion. Therefore mind and matter can not 
coexist. 

Every system of logic worthy of the name re- 
quires each premise in a syllogism to consist of a 
readily demonstrable principle or a conclusively 
provable fact. Here we have neither. Opposition, 
by implication, at least, affirms rather than denies 
antithetic coexistence. 

All bilateral objects have opposite sides; mascu- 
line implies existence of feminine, east of west, and 
zenith of nadir. 

274 : 13. "Christianity and the Science which ex- 
jKDunds it (Christian Science) . . . supercede the 
so-called laws of matter." 

A bald and bare assertion without semblance of 
proof. Gravity, cohesion, extension, mobility, etc., 
are some of the laws of matter. Do not they operate 
with the same force and precision as before the 
founder of Christian Science was born? The laws 
of germination, reproduction, development in the 
animal and vegetable kingdoms; the laws of chang- 
ing seasons and the movements of the celestial 
bodies, exert the same untiring energy to-day as 
when the "morning stars sang together, and all the 
sons of God shouted for joy." Obedience to the 
same immutable laws may be predicted with the 
same certainty as when creation dawned. 

273: 1. Matter is "contrary to God, and can not 
emanate from him." 

274 : 30. "Matter, examined in the light of divine 
Metaphysics, disappears." 

But how can that which does not, and never 

20 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

did, exist, be examined or made to disappear? 

277:26. "Matter is an error of statement." 

A meaningless sentence. A fair sample of the 
vague and indefinite mode of expression frequently- 
used in the Christian Science text-book. A false 
assertion concerning matter might constitute a state- 
ment of error ; but matter itself can not be either an 
error of statement or the statement of an error. 

283 : 8. "Matter and its effects . . . are not facts 
of mind. They are not ideas, but illusions." 

If matter is but an illusion, then all objects com- 
posed of, or pertaining to, matter are also illusions. 
Thus the sun, moon, planets,- and the earth with its 
trees, mountains and streams; yea, and the ocean 
with its freighted ships, and the forest, field, factory 
and mine with their varied products — are all but 
figments of a fertile imagination. For, 

280 : 7. "Mind creates and multiplies them, and 
the product can only be mental." 

278: 1. "Science reveals nothing in Spirit out of 
which to create matter." 

Before this sentence can give any force to the 
contention that matter does not exist, it must assume 
as the major premise in the syllogism that matter 
can not exist unless Science has revealed its com- 
ponent elements. But Science has not revealed the 
component elements of either mind or spirit; hence 
neither mind nor spirit can exist. The major 
premise is obviously untrue. As explained in the 
preface, the word "Science," when it occurs in the 
text-book, means Christian Science as it is taught 
therein. (See 127:9-12.) So, then, Mrs. Eddy 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

could not have existed until after her work, "Science 
and Health," had revealed something out of which 
she could have been created. Nothing, therefore, 
could have existed before her revelation was made. 

278 : 3. "Divine metaphysics explains away mat- 
ter." 

By no means true. So-called Christian Science 
attempts to explain away matter, but matter refuses 
to be explained away. It persists in projecting itself 
on, and dominating consciousness. Matter and the 
various objects composed thereof are as numerous 
and as persistently obvious as before the birth of 
the founder of the cult. Moreover, the very means 
by which her doctrines are preserved and dissemi- 
nated — viz. : books, paper, ink, type, etc. — are all 
composed of the very matter which she so vainly 
endeavors to explain away, and without which not 
one of her strange doctrines could have been in- 
flicted on a credulous and longsuffering public. 

278 : 29. "We define matter as error." 

Matter may be a vehicle of error as well as of 
truth. It may also constitute a subject of which 
either truth or error may be predicated. But it can 
not possibly be defined as error, for a concrete sub- 
stance can never properly be defined as identical with 
an abstract term. 

278 : 16. "The admission that there can be 
material substance requires another ; viz. : that 
matter is self-creative, self-existent, and therefore 
eternal." 

Another obvious example of the single-premise 
logic, or syllogism in which the major premise is so 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

evidently untrue that it is omitted. Here is the 
argument in the form of a syllogism. 

1. Nothing exists except the self-creative, self- 
existent, eternal. 

2. Matter is not self-creative, self-existent, 
eternal. 

3. Therefore matter does not exist. 

Are our Christian Science friends ignorant of 
the fact that their major premise in the above syllo- 
gism is obviously untrue, and hence no conclusion 
is deducible therefrom ? By endorsing this logic they 
so pretend. 

287 : 27. "Matter is neither a thing nor a person." 

289:29. "Matter and death are but mortal illu- 
sions." 

292: 13. "Matter is the primitive belief of mortal 
mind." 

Clearly wrong. Matter, or an object composed 
thereof, may constitute the subject of a belief; but 
neither matter nor any object composed thereof 
(concrete) can be or constitute a belief (abstract), 
whether primitive or otherwise. 

421 : 18. "There is no matter." 

Numerous other quotations might be made from 
the text-book, equally positive and emphatic, to show 
its teaching on the subject. The foregoing, however, 
will suffice to prove that the non-existence of matter 
constitutes one of the basic postulates of so-called 
Christian Science. 

II. The Futility of Sensation. 

Recognition of our absolute dependence on the 
knowledge gained through the five senses for both 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

safety and efficiency in every phase of human ex- 
istence and activity, is well-nigh universal among 
persons of normal mentality. It is only by giving 
heed to the warnings of sense that we attain any 
measure of success, or escape the dangers which 
beset us at almost every turn. 

For the control of the numerous mechanical 
devices designed for both pleasure and utility, with 
any degree of safety or efficiency, we are dependent 
almost wholly on the accuracy of the sight, hearing 
and touch. But for them we would be consumed by 
the devouring flame, collide with the rapidly moving 
object, fall into the yawning chasm, or have our 
vitals torn out by voracious beasts, unconscious 
meanwhile of the danger. 

Seeing, then, that we neither remain passive, nor 
make a move in any direction or for any purpose, 
except at the suggestion and under the guidance of 
one or more of the five senses, it is not strange that 
their integrity when normally exercised has ever 
constituted one of the unquestioned axioms of logic. 
Who, then, will deliberately impeach the only means 
by which we can obtain information requisite to 
every sane act and rational conclusion? We know 
of none outside the so-called Christian Science cult 
who so dares ; and they in theory only — surely not 
in practice, as will be shown in a subsequent part 
of this work. 

That the absolute and unconditional futility of 
sensation constitutes another of the basic postulates 
of the cult doctrines we now proceed to show. 

213: 17. "The ear does not really hear." 

24 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

Then, the eye really sees not and the nerves 
really feel not. We could see and hear and feel as 
well without these organs of sense as with them. If 
the loss of the sense follows the loss of the organ, 
it is but a coincidence ; there is no causative relation. 

215:22. "With its divine proof (C) Science re- 
verses the evidence of the senses at every point." 

At every point. Not only where the contact is 
feeble and its relation remote, but also where the 
contact is definite and energetic and the relation 
direct. Every contact of the human mind with ob- 
jective nature by means of the senses is a falsehood, 
a deception, a reversal of the truth. When the eye 
presents to the mind the form of an object, it is the 
opposite, a reversal of what the object really is. 
When you look into the Christian Science text-book 
and read the above sentence, it is its antithesis which 
is there, and it has been reversed to make it appear 
as you have read it. 

To the Christian Scientist, then, every sentence 
is made to mean just the opposite to what it means 
to the reader not under its influence. It has been 
reversed in meaning to that, which was conveyed by 
the sense of hearing or sight. 

Then, why send men to teach the Christian 
Science doctrines by lectures? why print books and 
periodicals? why assemble on Lord's Day to read 
and study the Bible or other books — if the eye and 
the ear are futile, incapable of accurately receiving 
and transmitting to the human mind the words and 
the ideas thereby represented? If all of the five 
senses are 

25 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

293: 31. "Avenues and instruments of error." 
Which 

284:21. "Can afford no proof of God," 
Then in vain do we hear or read the truth from any 
source. If from the Christian Science text-book or 
the lecture platform, or even from the Bible, it 
must be senseless and unreliable ; for, how can accu- 
rate information come to the human mind through 
vehicles which are "avenues and instruments of 
error" ? 

How did the founder of the cult learn about God? 
Was it by some means other than the five senses? 
If so, how? And why does she not tell us how we 
may obtain information which is accurate? Must 
we reverse the appearance of every object we see, 
and of every statement we hear, in order to get the 
truth ? 

If coming through the means of the senses re- 
verses, or even nullifies, all information, we have no 
revelation of truth from God. If all facts are 
reversed by coming through the senses, we have the 
exact opposite of the truth, both from the Bible and 
the Christian Science text-book. Any revelation, 
therefore, must be nugatory, even though given by 
God himself, unless by some other means than the 
senses. How is it to be obtained ? How are we who 
are not under the Christian Science influence to 
obtain any knowledge thereof? 

We do not believe that when man came from the 
hand of his Maker he was shut out from all com- 
munication with kindred minds, and from appre- 
hending and contemplating the beauties of nature, 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

because of the futility of the only means with which 
he had been provided. He was given the five cor- 
poreal senses — windows of the soul, as it were — by 
which to perceive, enjoy and utilize the various 
objects adapted to his pleasure, instruction and 
development. 

It is not probable that a God, described even by 
our Christian Science friends as too good to create, 
too wise to permit, and too pure to cognize evil, 
would endow his most intelligent creatures with 
faculties which dominate their life by projecting on 
their consciousness naught but falsehood and decep- 
tion — vehicles whose prime function was to betray, 
mislead and deceive. 

Where can be found grosser infidelity or more 
assumptious impeachment of God's wisdom and 
benevolence ? 

That we may not even seem to pervert, distort, 
exaggerate, or to have misapprehended the teaching 
of our Christian Science friends on this important 
branch of the subject under consideration, we quote 
further. 

311 : 26. "The objects cognized by the physical 
senses have not the reality of substance. They are 
only what mortal belief calls them." 

The Bible, then, is not a substantial reality, be- 
cause its knowledge came to us through the medium 
of the senses. Nor is faith, in reality, "the substance 
of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1), because it comes 
to us by hearing, one of the five physical senses 
(Rom. 10:17). 

By "mortal belief" we suppose the author meant 

27 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

a belief entertained by one who is mortal. As will 
be shown in a subsequent part of this work, none 
are mortal — subject to death — except those who rec- 
ognize its reality; for death is an illusion, powerless 
over those who so regard it. 

Then, "mortal belief" is a belief in the reality of 
death, by one who thereby becomes subject thereto, 
and "the objects cognized by the senses" are only 
what mortal belief calls them. So, if mortal belief 
calls health disease, or disease health; or if it calls 
the Bible Christian Science, or Christian Science the 
Bible, they become so. Or if it calls a plane surface 
a sphere, or a sphere a cube, it will be so. 

312: 1. "Whatever is learned through the mate- 
rial sense must be lost because it is reversed by the 
spiritual fact of (C) Science." 

477: 11. "Christian Science . . . declares the cor- 
poreal senses to be mortal and erring illusions." 

So all of the Bible, as well as all of the Christian 
Science doctrines, learned by means of the five 
senses must be lost "because reversed by the spirit- 
ual facts of" Science." Why, then, try to teach 
people by means of the senses? Since all must be 
lost, why expend time, money and energy in the 
fruitless endeavor to accomplish by futile means 
that which must be reversed? 

Writers, speakers, the profound thinkers of every 
age and clime, appear to have regarded the five 
physical senses as entirely reliable when normally 
exercised; and on this assumption have used them 
as trustworthy vehicles for the transmission of 
thought, and as the sole media for the cognition of 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

objective nature, each, of course, within its intended 
sphere, and concerning the objects to which it is 
adapted. The apostle Paul states positively that 
faith, without which it is impossible to please God, 
comes by hearing (Rom. 10: 17). And Christ him- 
self fully recognized the integrity of sight, touch and 
hearing when he addressed his remarks to Thomas' 
ears, saying: "Behold my hands; and reach hither 
thy hand, and thrust it into my side : and be not 
faithless, but believing" (John 20:27). 

Though our Christian Science friends utterly 
repudiate the five senses as media for the acquisi- 
tion of information, they fail to point out any other 
means by which the great store of knowledge due to 
scientific research has been, or may be, acquired. 
They neither show, nor attempt to show, a single 
item of scientific information wholly derived from 
sources other than sensation. 

Though bitterly assailing these two witnesses 
(matter and sensation) as neither competent nor 
credible, they brazenly use them to the exclusion of 
other means to place their doctrines before a credu- 
lous public, and ask our unqualified assent thereto 
on their uncorroborated testimony. 

A number of instances have been cited in the 
Christian Science text-book to show how frequently 
and easily the human mind has been misled by im- 
plicit reliance on the evidence of the senses. For 
instance, the illusions of the sleight-of-hand per- 
former, and the ease with which Rebekah and Jacob 
misled Isaac in obtaining the blessing intended for 
Esau. 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

Even a superficial consideration of these cases, 
however, will show that they are in no sense due to 
futility of sensation. In the science of legerdemain 
it is an open secret that the illusion is due to a con- 
cealment of the real facts, objects and conditions 
from the particular sense which is adapted to their 
cognition, respectively ; thus making the mind draw 
its conclusion from the testimony of the wrong sense 
— the one incapable of furnishing the best testimony 
of the particular matter in question. Of course the 
senses are not reliable when the very facts, objects 
and conditions which they are respectively capable 
of cognizing are withheld from them. 

In the case of Isaac, which of the senses misled 
him? It was not that of sight, for that was gone; 
and it was the only one especially adapted to in- 
dividual recognition. Therefore he did not pretend 
to depend on it. He, therefore, took the best sub- 
stitute; viz.: the testimony of witnesses on whom he 
had been accustomed to rely. Was it his hearing? 
No, for he heard accurately even the falsehood of 
his wife and son. Nor was it his touch, for it rightly 
detected the rough and hairy surface of the hands 
which were submitted thereto. And surely it was 
not his smell, for that rightly interpreted the odor 
of the "goodly raiment of her eldest son," with 
which she had regaled Jacob. His hearing was so 
reliable that it detected the difference in the voice; 
but the veracity of the wife of his bosom overruled 
his intuition. 

To say that the sense of hearing is futile because 
it does not detect a falsehood, or that the sense of 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

sight is futile because a blind man may be deceived, 
constitutes a gross perversion of logic. It is no part 
of the function of hearing to detect falsehood. Its 
function is to transmit words or other sounds to the 
mind, whether the ideas thereby represented are true 
or false. So we see that in this case there is no hint 
of futility of sensation, nor any circumstance justify- 
ing such inference. 

Probably it is rarely, if ever, that illusions are 
due solely to futility of sensation. Attempting to 
make one sense furnish cognitions for which it is 
not adapted, failure to assemble a sufficient number 
of accurate cognitions, and failure to determine their 
proper relations by reflection, are more frequently 
the causes of drawing erroneous conclusions. It is 
for this reason that both childhood and senility are 
more easily imposed upon than mature manhood. 
The one has not learned, while the other has for- 
gotten, the danger of concluding important matters 
without having assembled all the factors, and deter- 
mined the exact relation which each bears to the 
equation. 

As an illustration, a skillful artist may so shape 
and color stone, metal, clay, wood or pulp as to be 
not only similar to, but, in these respects, identical 
with, an apple or an orange. To the eye alone, it is 
such; for the eye is not primarily charged with the 
function of determining the weight, odor, flavor, 
texture or taste of an object. If we have lost the 
other senses, or neglect to use them, or give credence 
to information furnished by others, surely such fact 
furnishes no ground for asserting the futility of 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

sensation. We should assemble the cognitions to 
which each and all of the senses are adapted before 
concluding the character and quality of the object, 
especially in a case of vital importance. And we 
venture to affirm that after being subjected to the 
usual tests of sight, touch, hearing, smell and taste, 
not even one of our Christian Science friends would 
entertain the faintest shade of doubt as to whether 
the object was an apple or an orange. Try one of 
them and see if he will not arrive at the same con- 
clusion, by the same means (the senses) and cling 
to it with the same tenacity as do others. 

Thus, while vociferously denouncing the five 
physical senses as absolutely futile, our Christian 
Science friends trust and depend on them just as we 
do; and when normal, and judiciously exercised, 
they do not fail to furnish even their traducers with 
the most accurate and reliable information. 

From the foregoing considerations it sufficiently 
appears that the doctrine of futility of sensation is a 
myth, akin to that of the non-existence of matter. 
Both are obviously and irreconcilably opposed to 
primary, axiomatic truth; it is really believed by 
none, though vehemently professed by our Christian 
Science friends. That they do not really so believe 
is proven by both their precept and practice in the 
ordinary walks of life. Doctrines which are never 
practiced by those who profess them do not rise to 
the dignity of convictions. 

III. Unreality of Obvious Phenomena. 

Corollary to the doctrine of non-existence of 
matter and futility of sensation, so-called Christian 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

Science proclaims the unreality of certain phenomena 
which are obvious to all minds of extensive observa- 
tion and scientific training. Perhaps nature presents 
no phenomena more universally common to the ex- 
perience and observation of the entire human race 
than sin, or transgression of law; disease, including 
disability from violence ; and death. And these are 
some of the phenomena the reality of which is denied 
by so-called Christian Science. 

283 : 8. "Matter and its effects, sin, sickness and 
death are not facts of mind. . . . They are not ideas, 
but illusions." 

Admitting the non-existence of matter and futility 
of sensation, we might concede the unreality of sin, 
sickness and death. For disease, including disability 
and the pain incident thereto, are but symptoms, 
indicating abnormal condition of the organs of the 
material body; sin or crime is but an abuse or per- 
version of the functions of these organs, and death 
is a complete cessation of all functional activity. 
Therefore, if there be no matter, there can be no 
material body with organs suspectible of becoming 
abnormal, nor whose functions can cease, be per- 
verted or abused; and the senses being futile, no 
means would exist for cognizing such conditions, 
were they possible. 

The reality of an object or condition is indicated 
by its being projected upon normal human conscious- 
ness, and permanently dominating the same, regard- 
less of volition. Familiar objects project themselves 
on our consciousness and persist in dominating the 
same with immutable assertion of their reality, 

(3) 33 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

whenever and wherever conditions are favorable for 
contact with them through the medium of the senses. 
We may obstruct the avenues to the organs of sight, 
hearing, taste and smell, thereby withdrawing them, 
at least partially, from contact with objective nature; 
but the nerves are ever in contact with some material 
substance ; and as soon as the obstruction is removed 
from the other organs, these objects again thrust 
their reality upon us with resistless pertinacity, 
whether we will or not. The same sense of reality 
dominates the consciousness of our Christian Science 
friends, who, while denying it in theory, proclaim it 
in practice, just as we do. 

In the text-book it is mentioned that an ampu- 
tated limb will sometimes thrust a sense of its reality 
on the consciousness of him who lost it (see 212: 5). 
But this does not meet the question. During 
delirium, aberration, dreams, and perhaps reverie, 
unrealities may assume the guise of realities, but only 
while the abnormal condition continues. On resum- 
ing activity the senses dispel the illusion and con- 
sciousness promptly responds to their suggestion. 
Then no amount of sophistry can convince even the 
Christian Science adherent that the amputated limb 
has been replaced, as is the lobster's claw. (See 
489:3 et seq.) 

To argue this question with a trained mind would 
seem superfluous, for the doctrine rests on the 
postulates of non-existence of matter and futility of 
sensation, both of which have been shown to be with- 
out foundation in reason. 

Notwithstanding the obvious and universal char- 

34 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

acter of the phenomena known as sin, sickness and 
death, their reality is absolutely, repeatedly and un- 
qualifiedly denied in the Christian Science text-book, 
and they are each and all characterized as illusions, 
superinduced by and solely dependent on a belief 
that they are real. Without this recognition they 
would be impotent. This we now proceed to show 
from the text-book. 

184: 1. "The so-called laws of health are simply 
laws of mortal belief." 

184:6. "Belief produces the results of belief 
(reality), and the penalty (reality) lasts as long, and 
is inseparable from it." 

188 : 3. "What is termed disease does not exist." 

159:30. "Belief produces disease and all its 
symptoms." 

385 : 29. "The opposite belief would produce the 
opposite result." 

188:21. "Sickness is a growth of error, spring- 
ing from man's ignorance of (C) Science." 

As has been shown, the terms "Science" and 
"Christian Science" are identical and used inter- 
changeably. Then, it is ignorance of Christian 
Science as taught in the Christian Science text-book 
from which the error developing in sickness springs. 
They, therefore, who are not ignorant of its doc- 
trines can not be sick; and they who have studied 
them with diligence, can not be ignorant thereof, 
because the text-book contains 

456:28. "The whole of Christian Science, or the 
Science of healing through Mind." 

The founder of the cult and sole author of the 

35 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

text-book became sick, from the effect of which she 
died. Did this sickness result from ignorance of the 
doctrines which she declared constituted 

147: 15. "The complete science of mind healing"? 
Application of which 

462 : 16. "Is neither difficult nor toilsome." And 
of which the 

459:25. "Process is simple and the results sure." 

Was the malady which caused her death 

286 : 32. "Without real origin or existence"? 
And which 

415:4. "Had no foundation in fact"? 

How could that "growth of error" which con- 
stitutes disease dominate a mind thoroughly per- 
meated by truth? How could one be ignorant of the 
very system which under divine guidance she had 
founded, devoted a life to perfecting and adapting 
to every exigency in its power to eliminate sin, sick- 
ness and death? Why did not she apply her own 
infallible and divinely inspired remedy to her own 
case? It was no less than 

471 : 30. "Divine Science, which, reduced to 
human apprehension, she named Christian Science." 
And it was by her claimed to be 

274:22. "Absolute, and permits no half-way 
position in learning the principle and establishing the 
rule by demonstration." 

149: 11. "The rule and its perfectness in Science 
never vary." 

The founder yielded to an unreal malady; one 
without "origin or existence," and which "had no 
foundation in truth," and for which she had an in- 

36 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

fallible remedy by simple and easy process. She 
died of a belief in the reality of that whose unreality 
forms the basis of her system — an illusion. Because 

159:30. "A man's belief produces disease and 
all its symptoms." 

Had she at any time during her sickness dis- 
carded, or recovered from, her belief in the reality 
of her malady, she must immediately have recovered 
from the malady itself, for 

184: 6. "Belief produces the results of belief, and 
the penalty (reality) lasts as long and is inseparable 
from it." 

Plow could she be subject to the illusions of sick- 
ness and death when to her they were not illusions, 
for she fully understood their illusive character? 
If the reality consisted solely of a belief in, or rec- 
ognition thereof, how could they be real to one who 
repudiated the belief? 

472 : 26. "The only reality of sin, sickness and 
death is the awful fact that unrealities seem real to 
human belief." 

Here is a simple, easy, infallible remedy, divinely 
prescribed, which utterly fails on the very person 
who claims to have received the revelation. Can we 
confide in such ? 

447 : 27. "The sick are not healed by declaring 
there is no sickness, but by knowing there is none." 

But how can a disease dependent wholly on a 
belief in its reality be fatal to, or even affect, one 
who knows it to be unreal ? 

But Mrs. Eddy did not know disease to be an 
illusion, an unreality, because she had not definitely 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 



ascertained it to be true. Had she so ascertained, 
she could have demonstrated the fact, because all 
that was necessary was to refuse to recognize the 
fact, for 

188:21. "Sickness is a growth of error, spring- 
ing from man's ignorance of Science." 

In her case, as in all others, sickness and death 
proved to be realities, contrary to the divine revela- 
tion of their unreality, given through her. She has 
neither definitely ascertained nor demonstrated their 
unreality. In both these essential particulars this 
basic postulate of so-called Christian Science fails to 
measure up to scientific standards. 

The reality of sickness and death so persisted in 
and dominated her consciousness as to compel her to 
recognize, acquiesce in and surrender thereto. This 
was so absolutely inconsistent with a conviction of 
their illusive character as to constitute a repudiation 
or renunciation thereof. Then, during her last sick- 
ness and at her death, she renounced, repudiated 
this basic principle of the Christian Science religion. 
And so it is — must be — with each and every adherent 
of the cult. Disease and death are projected upon 
the consciousness with such persistent and irresistible 
force that we are compelled to acquiesce in their 
reality and submit to their dominion. The slightest 
benefit from the admonition, 

227: 20. "Christian Science raises the standard 
of liberty, and cries, 'Follow me! Escape the 
bondage of sin, sickness and death'," 
does not seem to have been realized, even by her to 
whom it was divinely revealed. 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

So we see that all consolation to be derived from 
belief in the unreality of disease and death, utterly 
fails us at the very time when it is most needed. In 
death, as in the sickness preceding, we are compelled 
to renounce all conviction as to their unreality. Of 
what value, therefore, can be the religion which 
proves false and futile, and must be renounced 
when our hearts are wrung with anguish, our 
feeble frames racked by fever or distracted by 
pain, and at death, when all earthly help seems but 
mockery ? 

393 : 29. "Man is never sick ; for Mind is not, 
and matter can not be." 

417: 10. "Maintain the facts of Christian Science: 
that Mind is God, and therefore can not be sick; 
what is termed matter can not be sick." 

All there is, therefore, to sickness is the mental 
illusion — the belief of its reality. All, therefore, 
who refuse to recognize — believe in — the reality 
thereof, must be — can not but be — immune from 
its influence. Why, then, is it that those who so 
profess are just as subject to disease as are they 
who make no such profession? The answer, both 
ready and sure, is the absolute falsity of the Chris- 
tian Science doctrine that the physical condition of 
the human body is controlled by the mental atti- 
tude of its possessor. 

Belief, then, in disease does not always bring 
its corresponding penalty, reality; nor are the two 
inseparable as stated at 184: 6 et seq. 

Nor does the opposite belief produce the oppo- 
site result, as stated at 385 : 29. 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

It is claimed by our Christian Science friends 
that this principle extends to organic disease as well 
as functional, and to disabilities from accident and 
violence. We quote : 

348:9. "One disease is just as much an illusion 
as another." 

397 : 14. "When an accident happens, . . . your 
thought is more potent to make the injury real 
than the accident itself." 

122 : 24. "To material sense, the severance of the 
jugular vein takes away life; but to spiritual sense 
and in Science life goes on unchanged." 

The author was not "in Science' — whatever that 
may mean — when she repudiated the unreality of 
sickness and death by yielding an assent to their 
reality and thereby becoming subject to them, as 
taught in the text-book. Nor did she have even 
a "little understanding" of the doctrine divinely 
revealed to her as to their unreality, for, 

329:4. "A little understanding of Christian 
Science proves the truth of all I say of it." 

Hence, "a little understanding" would have 
proven the unreality of sickness and death by con- 
vincing her of their unreality, as taught by her, 
thereby rendering her immune, for, 

184:6. "Belief produces the results of belief; 
and the penalty (reality) lasts as long, and is insep- 
arable from it." 

233:1. "Every day makes its demands upon us 
for higher proofs, rather than professions. These 
proofs consist solely in the destruction of sin, sick- 
ness and death, as Jesus destroyed them." 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

329:11. "We must prove our faith by demon- 
stration." 

242:30. "The finger-posts of divine (Christian) 
Science show the way the Master trod, and require 
the proof which he gave, instead of mere pro- 
fession." 

Has any one of the cult given the proof that 
Jesus gave? Has any one destroyed sin, sickness 
and death as he did? If not, the system must be 
false or no one, not even the author, has sufficient 
understanding thereof to make a success in a single 
well-authenticated case. 

And yet they flood the country with literature, 
and send scores of lecturers through the land to 
instruct people in a Science of which not one of 
them has even "a little understanding." And not- 
withstanding its divine and infallible character, it 
has proven so universal a failure that no well- 
defined and well-authenticated case can be shown. 

And this is what they ask us to accept as 
scientific. Can we? 

So-called Christian Science is not tendered to a 
suffering and grief-stricken world as a mere seda- 
tive or palliative. It is offered as a universal 
remedy for every ill, physical, moral and spiritual, 
to which a human may be or become subject. In 
the text-book it is claimed that 

109:11-27. The author sought and obtained 
by divine revelation the complete system of mind- 
healing, and 

147: 15. Gave it complete in that volume. That 
it contains 

41 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

456:27. "The whole of Christian Science or 
the science of healing through mind." And it is 
stated to be, logically, 

129 : 3. "As harmonious as the reasoning of an 
accurately stated syllogism, or a properly computed 
sum in arithmetic." 

233 : 25. As unquestionable as a quotient in 
division. 

149: 11. "The rule and its perfectness in Science 
never vary." 

459:25. "The process is simple and the results 
sure." 

462 : 16. "There is nothing difficult nor toil- 
some in the task when the way is pointed out. 

These quotations are utterly inconsistent with 
anything less than complete immunity to all ills and 
maladies of every kind in the one who has a "little 
understanding of Christian Science" and assents to 
its doctrines. In fact, it could not be otherwise ; 
for if the disability is identical with the illusion, 
which it is, how can one be dispelled and the other 
remain? This would be equal to saying that a 
thing can be, and not be at the same time. 

In a nutshell, so-called Christian Science says 
there is no matter, hence no material body to 
become disabled : no material organs to become 
functionally abnormal, nor reliable sensation to 
inform us thereof, and so, no disease. There is 
no material heart to cease sending the blood through 
the veins, nor material lungs to cease taking air 
into the system — in fact, no material organs to 
cease their functional activity — consequently, no 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

death; for how can a real death be the sequence 
of an unreal cause? 

Nor can death be due to senility or decrepi- 
tude, for 

244 : 24. "Man in Science is neither young nor 
old. He has neither birth nor death." 

245 : 30. "Decrepitude is not according- to law, 
nor a necessity of Nature, but an illusion which 
may be avoided." 

305 : 27. "Because man is the reflection of his 
maker, he is not subject to birth, growth, maturity 
and decay." 

Therefore, there can be no death. It can not be 
caused by disease, for that is an illusion; there is 
no material body to suffer violence, and senility and 
decrepitude are conditions to which man is not sub- 
ject in Science. How strange, then, that not one 
person has been enabled to escape these calamities 
through this infallible and divinely revealed system. 

471 : 29. "Which, reduced to human apprehen- 
sion she has named Christian Science." 

That I have not misrepresented nor perverted 
the teachings of the cult about death will appear 
from further quotations : 

42 : 6. "Death will be found to be a mortal 
dream, which comes in the darkness and disappears 
with the light." 

44 : 28. "His disciples believed Jesus dead while 
in the sepulchre, whereas he was alive." 

46:2. "They saw him after his resurrection and 
learned that he had not died." 

But it is urged that, as Christian Science treat- 

43 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

ment may do some good, we should not fight it. 
We fight nothing in the sense of using physical force 
or violent language. Nor do we oppose, even court- 
eously, any good which is rationally attributed to 
such treatment. We simply seek to ascertain to 
what extent, if any, such treatment is based on 
correct principles, that by keeping within their 
limit, we may not neglect other means of relief 
logically promising, and at the same time avoid 
dissipating our means and energies in fruitless 
effort. 

Where truth and error are so intermixed in a 
system as to be inseparable it may be best to reject 
the whole unless the proportion of error is such as 
to be practically negligible. Where each is easily 
recognized and they are readily separable, the error 
should always be rejected and the truth retained. 
We welcome any truth which Christian Science doc- 
trines may contain and any good in which its prac- 
tice may result. 

If they are productive of benefit, such fact is 
due either to accident or to an intelligent appli- 
cation of correct principles to duly ascertained 
conditions. If, as claimed, the system provides a 
universal and infallible remedy for every human 
disease and disability, why not accurately trace its 
laws of causation in order that the formula for the 
cure of each malady may be definitely stated, 
thereby securing certainty — uniformity of sequence? 

That mental treatment may relieve — possibly 
cure — maladies which are purely mental in origin 
and character, is by no means improbable, but in 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

order to apply it one needs not to proclaim it as a 
divine revelation to a nineteenth-century woman, 
nor that by means thereof may be solved mechan- 
ical and chemical problems without the use of 
mechanical or chemical means or the application 
of mechanical or chemical laws. 

Fractures, ruptures and dislocations in the 
human body are as purely mechanical as the wear- 
ing out, breaking or removal of an essential part 
from a machine, breaking of a lock or dam, or 
removal of a part of a building. Destroying life 
by means of an alkaline poison is as purely chem- 
ical in character as is the union of fatty acids and 
sodium salts in making common soap. If a purely 
mental process can remove a cinder from the eye, 
an abscess from the liver or a tjmor from the 
human body, or restore a lost member, why may 
not it also restore the lock, replace the lost part 
of the machine or repair a bridge? If the mental 
process can break down the affinity between the 
acid and the alkali in the human stomach, why not 
in the soap-kettle and the chemical laboratory? 

It is such irrational propositions as these which 
we oppose; viz.: That physical results may be 
attained with certainty without the use of physical 
means or the application of physical laws ; and that 
God is giving his sanction to such absurd teaching. 

That the tenets of every religious sect embody 
some truth, and that such truth, intelligently applied 
in cases to which it is adapted, will accomplish 
good, may be readily conceded. Placing treatment 
on a false basis, attributing results to a wrong 

45 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

cause, and claiming infallibility for a system whose 
failures far outnumber its successes, can not fail 
to be productive of evil. 

"But," says one, "what of the many wonderful 
cures wrought by Christian Science treatment?" 
And what of the many wonderful cures that have 
followed taking dozens of the quack nostrums, 
accounts of which fill the yellow journals? And 
what of the wonderful recoveries following treat- 
ment by our friends of the Mormon, Mohammedan, 
Glyggy Bluk, and other sects, and especially those 
of recent date, by Catholics at Loudres in France? 

Shall we assume superiority for the Christian 
Science cases while the cause assigned is no more 
rational, the cures reported no more wonderful 
and the evidence by which they are supported no 
more convincing? 

No case of modern physical healing, due solely 
to divine or metaphysical means, and bearing all 
the credentials required by a court of law, has 
been brought to the notice of this scribe. To 
make such case even approximately conclusive, the 
following conditions must concur : 

1. The malady must be duly ascertained to be 
real, not imaginary. 

No doubt people often think they have certain 
diseases, when, in fact, they either have none at 
all or something entirely different from what they 
suppose. If the malady be imaginary, it may be 
relieved by imaginary remedies. If it be from fear, 
apprehension, anxiety, assurance that they are with- 
out foundation should relieve the sufferer. If a 

46 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

mental picture of disease — an illusion, hypochondria, 
then dispel the illusion, and the cure is effected. 

Here is a fatal weakness in a large proportion 
of cases where the complication is internal — none 
but a skilled diagnostician, thoroughly familiar with 
the relation between symptom and malady, can even 
guess at the cause, character and extent of disease 
of this kind. So well recognized is this principle 
that no respectable court would render judgment 
for an insignificant sum on the uncorroborated 
statement of an unskilled witness as to the char- 
acter or extent of internal complications. 

2. The malady must be shown to be such in 
character and extent as to preclude recovery 
through human skill, supplemented by the recupera- 
tive and restorative energies of Nature ; or the 
cure must be instantaneous. 

Nature is ever alert to heal, repair, restore and 
recuperate. Nor does she confine her efforts in 
this line to human beings. She exerts them not 
only on the brute creation, but on inanimate organ- 
isms. Probably no man knows just what she can 
accomplish unaided nor the time required. If 
there be a well-authenticated case of her perform- 
ing an instantaneous cure or restoring a lost 
member to the body, it has escaped my observa- 
tion, though Christian Science claims that she does 
both. See 212:5, etc. 

Just how near she may come to these results 
the writer can not say. But where recovery follows 
gradually a number of dissimilar treatments, as 
hygiene, manipulation, medication, surgery, prayer 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

and metaphysical process, who can say with any 
degree of certainty that the cure was not wrought 
by Nature, in spite of, rather than because of, 
treatment of any kind. Surely none but the skilled 
diagnostician can say with certainty in any case, 
and he in but a few among the many. 

Some of the cures wrought by Nature, wholly 
unaided, seem almost incredible. The writer hereof 
could relate a number which have come under his 
observation, and which, had he been superstitious, 
he would have doubtless attributed to supernatural 
means. In some cases Nature did her work so 
promptly that had it been done by the physician or 
surgeon the temptation to ascribe unusual skill 
would have been great. 

3. The cure must be complete and obvious. 

Relief partial and temporary may be had from 
some of the most malignant and incurable diseases 
by the use of stimulants, opiates and anesthetics. 
The cures wrought by Christ and his apostles 
were neither partial, temporary nor gradual. The 
maladies were usually external and structural in 
character, obvious to all fair-minded observers, and 
so quickly yielded to the treatment as to pre- 
clude their being attributed to intervening agencies. 
Causation can never be inferred conclusively where 
relief follows treatment after such lapse of time 
as would render other means equally probable. 

Applying the above criteria and the ordinary 
rules of evidence recognized by courts for the pur- 
pose of avoiding imposition by .fraud, mistake and 
ignorance, not one of the many cases cited under 



IS IT SCIENTIFIC? 

the somewhat pretentious head of "Fruitage" in 
the Christian Science text-book, beginning at page 
600, makes even a prima- facie case of supernatural 
healing, much less proving it beyond a reasonable 
doubt. 

To convict one of a misdemeanor and subject 
him to a nominal fine, every rational hypothesis 
consistent with his innocence must be excluded 
beyond a reasonable doubt; and that in an open 
court, under the solemn sanction of an oath, with 
full opportunity to test the intelligence, credibility, 
means of knowledge and bias of the witness. 

All these precautions, so universally recognized 
as essential to the trustworthiness of human testi- 
mony, have either been neglected or willfully dis- 
regarded in the cases given in the text-book. Not 
a name or street number or post-office address is 
given; no assurance of the veracity, bias, sanity or 
means by which they determined the character and 
malignity of the many diseases about which they 
testify so glibly. 

Were any of these diseases real? If not, the 
wonderful character of the cure vanishes; for 
curing an illusion, an imaginary disease by the 
metaphysical process of convincing the patient of 
its unreality does not rise to the dignity of an 
unusual phenomenon. Christian Scientists profess 
to believe that no disease is real, but that 

348-9. "One disease is as much a delusion as 
another." 

Beliving this, how can they testify that the 
maladies were real? If they do not believe it while 

(4) 49 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

vociferously professing that they do, what confi- 
dence can we place in their credibility? Absolutely 
none. 

And what are their means for ascertaining the 
reality or unreality of these maladies which have 
been so wonderfully cured? They repudiate the 
senses as futile. None are left. 

The real Christian Scientist, therefore, who testi- 
fies to the reality of any disease alleged to have 
been cured or relieved by Christian Science treat- 
ment, stultifies himself by testifying to that which 
he not only religiously believes untrue, but likewise 
to that which he religiously believes impossible of 
ascertainment by means of the five physical senses, 
the only known means of acquiring knowledge. 

What court would solemnly adjudge a thing 
proven on the uncorroborated testimony of a wit- 
ness who declared he religiously believed it untrue, 
and also repudiated the only means by which its 
truth or falsity could possibly be ascertained? 
Reader, this is just what you must do in order to 
give credence to the wonderful — or even unusual — 
character of the cures related in the Christian 
Science text-book. 



50 



II. 

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT 
OF REVELATION— IS IT CHRISTIAN? 



II. 

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REVELA- 
TION—IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

So-called Christian Science Controverts the Divine Record 
— Usurps the Divine Prerogative — Repudiates the Divine 
Economy — Assumes to Revise, Reform, Supplement and 
Expurgate the Bible — Superior to Christ and the Apostles 
in Both Healing and Teaching — Repudiates Faith, Re- 
pentance, Profession, Water Baptism and Ignores the 
Lord's Supper — Treats Sin, Sickness and Death as Illu- 
sions — Ridicules Material Creation — Claims to Be or 
Constitute the Holy Ghost or Comforter. 

BY Revelation, we mean, of course, the Scrip- 
tures of the Old and New Testaments, com- 
monly called the Bible; for these constitute the 
basis of modern Christianity. 

It is not our purpose to present an argument in 
favor of the integrity of the sacred Scriptures; 
they need no defense from us. Our purpose is to 
ascertain by careful examination, and point out in 
courteous and kindly language, to what extent, if 
any, the so-called Christian Science doctrines differ 
fundamentally from those of the Bible, or stand in 
irreconcilable conflict therewith. 

The Christian Science text-book, "Science and 
Health with Key to the Scriptures," by Mary Baker 
Eddy, the founder of the cult, is an extensive 
volume. It contains seven hundred closely printed 
pages, about 6.5x4.5 inches, in medium-sized type. 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

Time and space, therefore, forbid a comparison of 
all its teachings with those of the Bible. But we 
are confident that we will show that the text-book 
of which Mrs. Eddy is the author, 

1. Controverts the Divine Record, 

2. Usurps the Divine Prerogative, 

3. Repudiates the Divine Economy. 

Having done this, we shall have refuted any 
claim the cult may assert to Christian character. 

In the first chapter of Genesis we read of the 
creation of the material world and the material 
objects which were placed thereon; and the ques- 
tion naturally arises, What was the character of the 
substance thus created? Was it mind, matter or 
force? Evidently it was not force alone, for force 
is but a quality, attribute or incident of mind or 
matter. There can be no mental force without 
mind, and there can be no physical or material 
force without matter. Hence, God did not create 
force independent of mind and matter. 

Were the earth and the inanimate objects therein 
mind or matter? 

Were the animals before being invested with 
life, and man before God "breathed into his nostrils 
the breath of life," mind or matter? A common 
definition of the two words answers the question. 
They were matter. Nor did the vitalizing of the 
inanimate beings change, to any extent, the material 
character of their material parts. Then God cre- 
ated matter. 

In every single chapter of the Bible, from 
Genesis to Revelation, statements are made con- 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

cerning the existence, movements, quality, char- 
acter or condition of material objects; i. e., objects 
composed of matter. But, how can any statement 
be true which predicates the being, action, char- 
acter, quality or condition of an object which has 
no existence? And how can a material object exist 
in the absence of matter, its sole component ele- 
ment? Both are obviously impossible. 

So-called Christian Science, by denying the 
existence of matter, also denies the existence of all 
material objects; and hence, all that is recorded in 
the Bible as to their character, quality and con- 
dition as well as all action by, through or upon 
them. 

We quote a few of the many passages from 
the text-book denying the existence of matter. 

177:10. "Matter, or body, is but a false con- 
cept." 

261:21. "Matter, which is only a form of 
human belief." 

273:1. "Matter is contrary to God, and can 
not emanate from him." 

277:26. "Matter is an error of statement." 

283 : 8. "Matter and its effects . . . are not facts. 
They are not ideas but illusions." 

421 : 18. "There is no matter." 

But some one will doubtless ask if this language 
is not used figuratively. Surely it is not meant to 
deny material creation as set forth in the Bible. 

That there be no mistake on this question, we 
quote further. 

109 : 32. "The three great verities of Spirit — 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, . . . 
contradict forever the belief that matter can be 
actual." 

335 : 7. "God never created matter." 

522:20. "God's glowing denunciations of man, 
. . . convince reason and co-incide with revelation 
in declaring material creation false." 

From the foregoing it is obvious that Christian 
Science opposition to the Bible record as to the 
existence of matter is diametric and irreconcilable. 

To reach the conclusion that the Christian 
Science doctrine of futility of sensation is equally 
opposed to that of the Bible requires but a super- 
ficial comparison of the texts of the two books. 

In Gen. 2 : 16 we read : "And the Lord com- 
manded the man, saying, Of every tree of the 
garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of 
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of 
it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt 
surely die." 

In the Book of Exodus the expression, "And 
God said unto Moses," occurs with remarkable 
frequency. 

But if it be true, as taught by the Christian 
Science text-book, that the sense of hearing, along 
with the other material senses, is one of the 

293:31. "Avenues and instruments of error." 

477:12. "Mortal and erring illusions." And 
which 

215:22. "Christian Science reverses at every 
point." And 

312:1. Whatever is learned thru them is lost 

56 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

because reversed by the spiritual fact of (C) 
Science." One of the senses which 

284:21. "Can afford no proof of God." And if 
213 : 17. "The ear does not really hear." 
If — we say the ear, the eye, the sense of touch, 
taste and smell are all so absolutely futile and 
unreliable as media of conveying thought, what 
was accomplished by all that God said to Adam, 
to Moses, or to any other person? These and 
other passages from the Christian Science text- 
book which might be multiplied almost indefinitely, 
charge God with the folly of giving commands and 
uttering threats through means unintelligible and 
utterly inadequate to the transmission of thought. 

In Heb. 11:6 it is said that "without faith it 
is impossible to please God"; and in Rom. 10:17 
that faith — doubtless the kind which is pleasing to 
God — comes by hearing. 

In the second and third chapters of Revelation 
the apostle John represents the risen Lord as say- 
ing, "He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear 
what the Spirit saith to the churches." He also 
told John to write by the messengers (angels) of 
the several churches. 

In John 20 : 27, he said to Thomas, "Behold 
my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust 
it into my side : and be not faithless, but believing." 
Did not the Lord, in these very acts, address 
Thomas by means of the ear, and, at the same 
time, assert by implication the integrity of both the 
sight and touch by appealing to Thomas to use 
them for the purpose of correcting a misapprehen- 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

sion? Why should the Master address Thomas 
through the ear if that organ was futile as a 
vehicle of thought? Why say, "Behold my hands," 
if the eye is but an avenue and instrument of 
error? And why say thrust thy hand "into my 
side," if the touch is so unreliable that its testi- 
mony "must be lost because reversed by the spirit- 
ual fact of science"? And how could the several 
messages to the churches concerning God and the 
things pertaining to his kingdom be of any avail 
if the eye be one of the senses which "can afford 
no proof of God"? 

The idea that God made a revelation to man, yet 
furnished no reliable means by which it might be 
truly and accurately apprehended, is too prepos- 
terous for the consideration of sentient beings. 
Especially is this true where such revelation pur- 
ports to involve man's highest interest for both 
time and eternity. 

As regards the futility of sensation, Christian 
Science, therefore, stands in direct and irreconcilable 
conflict with the Bible. 

So, also, will be found its teaching as to the 
unreality of sin, sickness and death ; for any, even 
apparent, plausibility with which this proposition 
may be invested involves the assumption that matter 
is non-existent and sensation futile. A few pas- 
sages are here quoted : 

283 : 8. "Sin, sickness and death are not facts. 
They are not ideas, but illusions." 

207 : 25. "They are errors which presuppose the 
absence of Truth." 

58 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

90:24. Christian Science teachings "shut the 
door on death." 

428: 1. "There is no death." 

480: 19. "God, or good, could never make man 
capable of sin." 

Throughout the entire Bible sin, sickness and 
death are treated as solemn and momentous reali- 
ties. From one end to the other sin is held forth 
as the one great curse of the human race. The 
insidious manner of its introduction, its distressing 
effect on humanity, and the misery entailed on its 
numerous victims, are all set forth in the most 
vivid and solemn language. Sickness and death 
are also set forth as serious and potent agencies 
of suffering and distress. Christian Science regards 
them as illusions. 

Genesis informs us that God warned Adam and 
Eve against the commission of one unreality — sin, 
that they might escape punishment by the infliction 
of another — death. "Thou shalt surely die" meant 
that they would be subjected to, or seized by, a 
delusion — a counterfeit, of which there was, and is, 
no counterpart or reality in Nature from which its 
true character could be learned. 

The devil suggested that there was some mis- 
take about the penalty. "Ye shall not surely die" 
(Gen. 3:4). According to Christian Science teach- 
ing, Satan was right, for if death is unreal, they 
could not surely, or really, die. 

Satan, then, told the truth, and God either mis- 
took or misrepresented the facts when he threat- 
ened our first parents with an unreal penalty. 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

God also pronounced a severe penalty on Satan 
for telling the truth ; and also on our first parents 
for believing it. In doing this he made two more 
mistakes, in that he predicted suffering, which 
according to Christian Science is unreal, and the 
pain of child-bearing; for there is no such thing. 

244:24. "Man in (C) Science . . . has neither 
birth nor death." 

258 : 27. "Never born, never dying." 

305 : 27. "He is not subject to birth, maturity 
and decay." 

According to Christian Science, the world which 
God created was immaterial, for matter was non- 
existent ; the man placed thereon was mythical, for 
he had neither material organs nor reliable senses ; 
he was tempted by an impersonal devil to partake of 
fruit which he could neither see, feel, taste nor smell, 
for these senses were all futile ; but he thereby 
committed a sin of which he was incapable (see 
480:19) and incurred an impossible penalty — death. 

In the fourth chapter of Genesis we again find 
sin spoken of as a serious reality in the murder of 
Abel, Cain's falsehood, and the illusive penalty 
pronounced: for if sin, suffering and death are 
illusions, no real murder could be committed nor 
real penalty inflicted. 

The most diligent search of the Bible, however, 
fails to disclose any hint as to the illusive char- 
acter of sin, sickness and death, while almost every 
page is pregnant with obvious implications of their 
grave realism. Therefore, in this respect also is 
the divine record positively and unequivocally con- 

60 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

troverted by Christian Science. Possibly there is 
no better way of emphasizing the incongruity than 
by setting out in hac verba prominent passages 
from each. 

The Bible says, "Hezekiah was sick unto death" 
(2 Kings 20:1); "They brought to him a man 
sick of the palsy" (Matt. 9:2); Dorcas "was sick 
and died" (Acts 9:36, 37); "Lazarus was sick" 
(John 11:2). 

Christian Science says there is no sickness. It 
is an illusion, a growth of error springing from 
ignorance of Science (188:21). 

The Bible says, "All flesh died that moved on 
the face of the earth" (Gen. 7:21); "Lazarus is 
dead" (John 11:14); "The beggar died: . . . the 
rich man also died" (Luke 16:22; Rom. 5:6); 
"Christ died for the ungodly ;" "It is appointed unto 
men, once to die" (Heb. 9:27). 

Christian Science says : 

44 : 28. "The disciples believed Jesus dead while 
in the tomb; whereas he was alive." 

46:2. "They saw him after his crucifixion and 
learned that he had not died." 

209:1. "Man, being immortal, has (present 
tense, not will have) a perfect indestructible life." 

289 : 18. "What appears to be death is but a 
mortal illusion." 

258 : 27. "Never born, never dying." 

305:28. "He is not subject to birth, growth, 
maturity and decay." 

Yet our Christian Science friends fail to show 
us a single person who came into existence other- 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

wise than by the natural process of procreation 
and parturition; or who left it otherwise than by 
violence, decay or dissolution. 

To show that these contradictions are not inad- 
vertent nor the antithesis incidental, but that they 
are both intentional and deliberate, we quote further : 

521 : 26. "The second chapter of Genesis con- 
tains a statement . . . which is the exact opposite 
of scientific truth." 

522:3. "The (C) Science of the first record 
(chapter) proves the incorrectness of the second, 
for they are antagonistic." 

522:24. "The latter part of the second chapter 
of Genesis is based on some hypothesis of error." 

So it is the Christian Science of the first chapter 
— that is, the interpretation which so-called Christian 
Science has placed thereon — which proves the incor- 
rectness of the second. Remember that Science, in 
the text-book, means Christian Science (127:9; 
471:29). 

Christian Science creates the antagonism by a 
groundless interpretation, which it insists must pre- 
vail over that recognized by the prophets, Christ, 
the apostles and the religious world ; for they each 
and all recognize the reality of material creation, 
the very thing which Christian Science denies. 

Not only, however, does Christian Science openly 
deny such parts of the Bible as seem to militate 
against its irrational tenets; it contains numerous 
insidious attempts at hypercriticism which may 
escape the scrutiny of the casual reader. The 
author's audacity in resting her interpretations on 

62 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

her own bare and bald assertion, rather than on 
some rational hypothesis, tends to divert the inert 
or uncritical mind from their irreverent tendencies. 
The book contains a number of tacit suggestions 
that the Bible is crude, incomplete and inaccurate ; 
and to us these appear as if intended to prepare 
the mind for considering the author's claim to 
superiority over Christ as a healer, and as an 
inspired writer over the men who wrote as the 
Spirit gave them utterance. 

If this be true, it is no less than a usurpation 
of the prerogative of Deity; and we now proceed 
to adduce the evidence. 

By reference to page 147, line 15 and page 
456, line 21, it will be seen that the Christian 
Science text-book assumes to contain a complete 
and infallible system of healing through mind; 
and that 

149: 11. "The rule and its perfectness in Chris- 
tian Science never vary." » 

147 : 24. "Our Master healed the sick and taught 
the generalities of its divine principle to his dis- 
ciples ; but he left no definite rule for demonstrating 
this principle of healing and preventing disease. 
This remained to be discovered by Christian 
Science." 

Now, honest reader, is not this a claim to supe- 
riority over Christ himself in the system which she 
discovered and gave to the world in its complete- 
ness, while Christ gave it only partially, because 
not then known, even by him? 

472 : 6. "God has set his signet on Christian 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

Science, making it co-ordinate with all that is real 
and eternal." 

But what is real and eternal? Let the text-book 
answer. 

151 : 26. "All that really exists is the Divine 
Mind." 

If her work is co-ordinate with all that is real 
and eternal, and Divine Mind, or God, is all that 
is real and eternal, then her work is co-ordinate 
— of equal rank — with God. And if she is superior 
to her work, as "He who builded the house hath 
more honor than the house," it follows that she is 
superior to God. (See Heb. 3:3.) 

It is claimed in the text-book for so-called 
Christian Science, that 

457:1. "It first registered revealed Truth, un- 
contaminated by human hypotheses." 

548:2. "Separates Truth from error (in the 
Scriptures) and breathes thru the sacred pages the 
spiritual sense of life." 

Here we have two obvious implications against 
the integrity of the Bible : viz. : 

1. That it contains error; else how could Chris- 
tian Science separate its error from its truth? 

2. That it is contaminated by human hypotheses ; 
that is, only partially divine in its origin and 
authority. 

If the Bible registered revealed truth uncon- 
taminated by human hypotheses, Christian Science 
was not the first, for it post-dated the Bible by 
nearly two thousand years. If the Christian Science 
text-book was the first ^contaminated, the Bible 

64 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

was so contaminated. None of the Old or New 
Testament writings, then, is free from human 
hypotheses, for Christian Science was the first. 

It is, then, the only religious work solely divine 
in its origin and authority. All others are con- 
taminated by human hypotheses. And on it 

472 : 6. "God has set his signet, making it co- 
ordinate with all that is real and eternal." 

Christian Science also "separates truth from 
error, and breathes through the sacred pages the 
spiritual sense of life." 

Who commissioned its author to arraign inspired 
men at the bar of her inerrant wisdom and to 
determine which was truth and which error on the 
"sacred pages"? If the Bible is God's word, one 
of three things is true. God's word is infallible 
or he has mistaken or misrepresented the facts 
recorded. If God mistook the facts, one wiser than 
he must correct him; if he misrepresented them, 
one more truthful must reprove him. And he who 
assumes to do so, assumes superior wisdom and 
integrity. 

From this conclusion there is no escape. 

534:1. "She (woman) was the first to discern 
spiritual creation." 

534 : 6. "The first to interpret the Scriptures in 
their true sense." 

The particular woman who first did these things 
is not named, but we run no risk in assuming 
that it is the same woman who "first registered 
revealed truth uncontaminated by human hypoth- 
eses," the foundation for whose assumption of 

(5) 65 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

divine prerogative was then being cautiously laid. 

None of the ancient worthies; none of the 
prophets or apostles; not even Christ himself, had 
"registered revealed truth uncontaminated by human 
hypotheses," discerned "spiritual creation," nor "in- 
terpreted the Scriptures in their true sense." 

John, the beloved of the Master, lived to a 
ripe old age, saw the last chapter added to the 
canon of inspiration, contributed thereto five of 
its volumes, including the last and most mysterious ; 
and, in the twilight of his declining years, doubtless 
looked daily for the coming of his Lord to rend 
The mystic veil which hangs between 
The visible and the unseen. 

Already worn so thin by time that he with 
apocalyptic vision gained glimpses into the great 
beyond; yet he, the last and most deep-seeing of 
all the apostles, had not "discerned spiritual crea- 
tion," learned to interpret the Scriptures "in their 
true sense," nor "registered revealed truth uncon- 
taminated by human hypotheses." 

Do not the above quotations show a claim by 
the author of the Christian Science text-book to 
superiority over Christ in her system of healing; 
to the apostles in revealing and interpreting God's 
will, and equality with God himself in authority to 
revise and correct the Bible? 

Never was logical syllogism more pregnant with 
inerrant conclusion. 

Is further corroboration desired? If so, we 
quote : 

99 : 10. "Truth has furnished the key, and with 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

this key Christian Science has opened the door of 
human understanding. None may pick the lock 
or enter by some other door." 

110:17. "No human tongue or pen taught me 
this Science; neither tongue nor pen can destroy it. 
It may be distorted by shallow criticism, but the 
Science and Truth therein will remain forever." 

150: 6. "Its appearing is the coming anew of the 
gospel. This coming was promised by the Master 
for its establishment as a permanent dispensation to 
remain forever. Now, as then, signs are wrought; 
but these signs are only to demonstrate its divine 
origin." 

472 : 6. "God has set his signet on Christian 
Science, making it co-ordinate with all that is real 
and eternal." 

At 331 : 30 the Trinity is said to consist of 
"God the Father; Christ the spiritual idea of son- 
ship; divine Science, or the Holy Comforter." 

Remember that divine Science and Christian 
Science as taught in the text-book are identical 
(127:9; 471:29 and 456:27). 

So, then, the Christian Science text-book is the 
Holy Comforter promised by John ; in other words, 
the Holy Spirit. It constitutes the key to the 
Kingdom or door through which all must enter, and 
the lock which none can pick. It is, therefore, the 
only means of salvation. 

But some one may suggest that our deductions 
are more extreme than the premises will justify. 
Let us see. 

369:32. "No man is physically healed in sin." 

67 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

210:17. "Jesus healed the sick and destroyed 
sin by the same metaphysical process." 

404:27. "Healing the sick and reforming the 
sinner are one and the same thing in Christian 
Science." 

406:3. "Sin and sickness are both healed by 
the same principle." 

If healing the sick and reforming the sinner are 
one and the same, then, when a physical malady is 
healed, the sick man is also reformed — redeemed 
from sin. He is no longer a sinner, but a Chris- 
tian—a child of God. And if the Christian Science 
text-book contains the complete system of healing 
(147:15 and 456:27), but Christ left no definite 
rule therefor (147:24), it follows that the Chris- 
tian Science system of physical healing, which car- 
ries also reformation or redemption from sin, is 
superior to that prescribed by Christ. Placed in 
the form of a syllogism: 

1. Healing the sick and reforming the sinner are 
one and the same in principle and process. 

2. The Christian Science system of healing the 
sick is superior in perfectness and efficiency to that 
given by Christ. 

3. Therefore the Christian Science system of 
reforming the sinner is superior in perfectness and 
efficiency to that given by Christ. 

Thus Christian Science has usurped the divine 
prerogative of reforming or saving the sinner from 
sin by substituting a superior system. 

But this is not all. Another element of supe- 
riority claimed for the Christian Science system 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

consists of immunity from relapse into the sinful 
condition. No such immunity was claimed for the 
gospel system prior to the advent of so-called 
Christian Science. 

217: 16. "When you have once conquered a dis- 
eased condition of the body thru Mind, that con- 
dition never recurs." 

We have already shown that in Christian Science 
physical healing and spiritual reformation are one 
and the same — rest on the same principle and are 
controlled by the same process, and that the penalty 
lasts as long and is inseparable from the cause. 

If present freedom from disease is contingent or 
dependent on present freedom from sin, will not 
future freedom from disease be contingent or 
dependent on future freedom from sin? If not, 
why not? 

If healing the sick and reforming the sinner 
are one and the same — rest on the same principle — 
controlled by the same process, and if "no man 
can be physically healed in sin," then present free- 
dom from disease is contingent on present freedom 
from sin. One can not, therefore, relapse into the 
one without relapsing into the other. As, there- 
fore, the diseased condition, after Christian Science 
treatment, "never recurs," how can the sinful con- 
dition recur? 

Christian Science claims to constitute a universal 
and infallible system for the cure of all ills, 
including disability and dismemberment, bringing 
therewith immunity from recurrence. It claims 
also, on the same principle, by the same process, 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

and as co-incident therewith, to give freedom from 
sin. On what principle, therefore, does the im- 
munity from disease not extend also to sin? Is 
not this assuming to offer a more complete and 
permanent salvation from the dominion of sin than 
that offered in the New Testament? Assuming a 
prerogative which belongs exclusively to God? If 
not, why not? 

The following letter appeared in the Christian 
Science Sentinel, one of the official organs of the 
cult, for the month of January, 1910: 

"Brookline, Mass., Dec. 24, 1909. 
"Dear Mr. McClellan : — 

"Christian Science practitioners should make their 
charges equal to those of reputable physicians in 
their respective localities. 

"Mary Baker Eddy." 

Holding in mind the above letter, we quote from 
the text-book: 

482 : 27. "Christian Science is the law of truth 
which heals on the basis of one mind, or God. It 
can heal in no other way." 

483 : 5. "We classify disease as error, which 
nothing but truth or Mind can heal ; and this Mind 
must be divine, not human." 

231 : 8. "If God heals not the sick, the sick are 
not healed ; for no lesser power equals divine, All- 
power." 

So, then, it is God, divine, infinite, All-power, 
which does the healing 

228: 25. For "there is no power apart from God, 
and to acknowledge any other is to dishonor him." 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

459 : 12. "Any attempt to heal with erring mor- 
tal mind, instead of resting- on the omnipotence of 
the divine Mind, must prove abortive. It is like 
putting a sharp knife into the hands of a blind 
man or raging maniac, and turning him loose in 
crowded streets." 

Still practitioners are directed to "make charges 
equal to those of reputable physicians," for that 
which they know is beyond human skill, and which 
they know they can not accomplish. 

Do the Christian Science practitioners tell their 
patients all these facts? Do they inform them why 
their presence is necessary to induce God to act? 

God's power being both ample and exclusive, 
why is he willing, only — or even more willing — in 
the presence of a Christian Science practitioner? 

God's power being freely admitted, if he refuses 
to heal, it must be for some reason which he deems 
sufficient. If we can ascertain the conditions on 
which God predicates his refusal, and correct them ; 
or if we can convince him that his reasons are 
insufficient, the difficulty may be obviated. Does 
Christian Science show how either of these objects 
may be accomplished, or God's willingness to heal 
be induced by other means? Then, how does the 
Christian Science practitioner contribute to the heal- 
ing of the sick? If the text-book does not contain 
this essential information, it is not the complete 
guide in healing which it professes to be, and 
should be repudiated. 

If God alone heals the sick, the act in each 
case is either conditional or unconditional. If the 

71 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

latter, no system, practitioner, medicine, process or 
co-operation of any kind can be of any avail. If 
conditional, the only method worthy to be called 
scientific would consist of ascertaining the exact 
conditions and giving specific directions for com- 
pliance therewith. Does the Christian Science text- 
book even pretend to do this ? Read it, my friend, 
and see. You will fail to find that it does. 

Is it the intercession of our Christian Science 
friends which is so potent in inducing God to per- 
form that bodily healing which is 

404:27. "One and the same with reforming the 
sinner"? And for which they charge equal to 
reputable physicians? And is not this making 
merchandise of the gospel — offering in competition 
with the old kind a little better quality of religion 
at a little different price? 

One who appears to have attained some skill in 
taxing the credulity of devout people from purely 
commercial motives was severely rebuked by the 
apostle Peter, in these words: "Thy money perish 
with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift 
of God may be purchased with money" (Acts 8: 
20). 

May a similar fate await all those who are 
engaged in victimizing the ignorant and credulous 
by their commercial devotions; even though the 
gains thereby extorted be expended in costly edi- 
fices, ostentatious equipage, or devoted to the benev- 
olence of the gospel of "the loaves and fishes." 

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here 
is the Christ, or, Here; believe it not. For there 

72 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and 
shall show great signs and wonders ; insomuch as 
if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect" 
(Matt. 24:23, 24). 

False teachers and false reformers have ever 
given their pernicious doctrines a sufficient admix- 
ture of truth to render them at least apparently 
plausible. But the writer of these pages does not 
remember ever before to have seen so great pro- 
fession predicated on so meager performance; nor 
so arrogant and obvious assumption of divine wis- 
dom and prerogative associated with so little 
consistency, logical acumen and reverence for the 
integrity of the Scriptures. 

Approved lexicons of modern times define such 
and similar assumptions as blasphemy; and even 
the scribes and Pharisees of Christ's time under- 
stood such to be the character of any attempt to 
forgive sin ( Luke 5:21). 

Christian Science also repudiates the divine 
economy or gospel plan of salvation. 

The New Testament or gospel economy describes 
salvation from sin as being predicated on obedience 
to divine commands. 

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, 
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that 
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" 
(Matt. 7:21). 

"Blessed are they who do his commandments, 
that they may have right to the tree of life, and 
may enter through the gates into the city" (Rev. 
22:14). 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

These and many other Scriptures prove that obe- 
dience is superior to mere profession. Among the 
things enjoined by the New Testament economy 
are faith or belief, repentance, profession, baptism 
and the eucharist. We are not discussing the essen- 
tial character of any one or more, nor of the rela- 
tive importance of any one as compared with the 
others. We simply assert that they are means of 
grace prescribed by the Scriptures, and undertake 
to show that they are all practically repudiated or 
ignored by so-called Christian Science. 

The apostle informs us that "without faith it 
is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11:6). And 
that faith — doubtless the kind which is pleasing to 
God— "comes by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Books 
were rare, and the ability to read them possessed 
by few; hence oral instruction was almost uni- 
versal. But Christian Science repudiates both the 
sense of hearing and that of sight. It characterizes 
them as 

293:31. "Avenues and instruments of error." 
477 : 12. "Mortal and erring illusions." 
284:21. "Can afford no proof of God." 
312:1. Whatever "is learned through them is 
lost, because reversed by the spiritual fact of (C) 
Science." 

How can we be permeated by a divine faith 
while repudiating the divinely prescribed means for 
its acquirement? 

Does so-called Christian Science repudiate re- 
pentance? It certainly does in practice, if not in 
theory. We quote: 

74 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

480 : 23. "Evil is but an illusion ; an error which 
has no real basis." 

480: 19. "God, or good, could never make man 
capable of sin." 

525 : 28. "Sin ... as devoid of reality as it is 
of truth." 

Now, Bible repentance does not mean sorrow 
simply, but reformation, a turning from evil. In 
Matt. 12 : 41 Jesus said, "The men of Nineveh 
repented." Jonah 3 : 10 tells how they repented ; 
viz. : "turned from their evil way." Heb. 12 : 17 
informs us that although Esau's sorrow was dili- 
gent even to tearfulness, "he found no place for 
[means of] repentance." 

But how can a real reformation be consummated 
against an unreal evil? an illusion? How can one 
repent, turn from an evil which he was and is 
incapable of committing? How can he even be 
sorry for having done that which is impossible 
and of which he is incapable? 

That our Christian Science friends repudiate or 
ignore water baptism is evident from the definition 
of the word "baptism" in the text-book. 

581 : 23. "Baptism. Purification by Spirit. Sub- 
mergence in Spirit." 

Were the apostles submerged in spirit at the 
beginning of the gospel dispensation, when they 
were overwhelmed by the visible and tangible pres- 
ence of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost? (Acts 
2:2.) 

Had the new converts at the house of Cornelius 
undergone "submergence of the Spirit." on whom 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

Peter said "the Holy Ghost fell, as on us at the 
beginning"? And of whom he said, "God gave like 
gift as unto us"? (Acts 11:15-17.) Peter evi- 
dently thought it was a baptism of the Holy 
Ghost, for he says in verse 16 that it brought to 
mind the prediction which Jesus had made of that 
very thing. But he nowhere intimated that it was 
identical with, or constituted a substitute for, water 
baptism. On the contrary, he makes it a reason 
why water baptism should be accorded them. "Who 
shall forbid water that these should not be baptized 
who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" 
And he commanded (not advised) them to be bap- 
tized. 

But what is the "Spirit," in which the so-called 
Scientist requires "submergence" ? It is no more 
nor less than the Christian Science doctrines set out 
in the text-book; and the "submergence" consists 
of being completely overwhelmed or permeated 
thereby, as we now proceed to show. 

In the Glossary of the text-book, at page 588, 
the primary definition of Holy Ghost is Divine 
Science. We have shown in a number of places 
that Divine Science and Christian Science are 
identical and used interchangeably therein. But 
we quote further. Defining the Trinity: 

331:30. "God, the Father; Christ, the divine 
idea of sonship; (not the son) divine Science, the 
Holy Comforter." 

471 : 30. "Divine Science, which reduced to 
human apprehension, she has named Christian 
Science." 

76 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

127 : 9. "The terms, divine Science, Spiritual 
Science, Christ Science, or Christian Science, or 
Science alone, she uses interchangeably according- to 
the requirements of the context. These synony- 
mous terms," etc. 

456 : 28. The Christian Science text-book "con- 
tains the whole of Christian Science." 

Now, honest reader, if Spirit means the Holy 
Spirit, Holy Ghost or Comforter, and if the Holy 
Ghost or Comforter is divine Science, otherwise 
called Christian Science; and if the text-book con- 
tains all of Christian Science, how can one accom- 
plish a more complete and thorough "submergence 
in Spirit" than by becoming completely permeated 
with and enveloped by the doctrines which the text- 
book contains ? Will some of our Christian Science 
friends answer? 

Does Christian Science also repudiate profes- 
sion? We shall see; but let us first determine the 
kind of profession which was made by the con- 
verts in the days of the apostles. 

"And the eunuch said, See, here is water; what 
doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, 
If thou believest with all thy heart [without mental 
reservation], thou mayest. And he answered, I 
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 
8:36, 37). 

What did the eunuch profess? Evidently, belief 
in the divine sonship of Christ. Nothing more, 
nothing less. Does Christian Science repudiate this? 
Beyond all question, as we will now proceed to 
show. 

77 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

We go again to the glossary of the text-book, 
and on page 589 find the word "Jesus" defined as 
follows : "The highest human corporeal concept of 
the divine idea." Anything about being the Son 
of God? 

583 : 10. "Christ. The divine manifestation of 
God, which comes to the flesh to destroy incarnate 
error." Son of God? No, a miracle is a divine 
manifestation, and so is a message. 

On the Christian Science platform, set forth 
in the text-book, beginning at page 360, line 10, 
we have thirty-two articles setting out the prin- 
ciples which form the bases for the cult doctrines 
in detail. 

Surely here is the place where, in addition to 
the glossary, the divine character of the Christ 
should be clearly set forth. We quote : 

331:26. "VII. Life, Truth, and Love constitute 
the triune Person called God, — that is, the triply 
divine principle, Love. They represent a trinity in 
unity, three in one, — . . . God, the Father; Christ 
the spiritual idea of sonship; divine (Christian, 127: 
9) Science the Holy Comforter." 

Not Christ, the son; not even Christ the idea 
of the son; but the idea of sonship. The idea of 
a son falls far short of being a son, and "the idea 
of sonship" falls far short of constituting either. 

But it is suggested that this is ignoring, rather 
than repudiating, the claim of Christ to be the Son 
of God. But does this help the matter? Will a 
work "divine in origin," and on which 

472:6. "God has set his signet, . . . making 

78 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

it co-ordinate with all that is real and eternal" — 

Will a work of this kind, both in its basic 
articles and in its definitions, ignore the chief ele- 
ment in the character of him who is the "author of 
eternal salvation"? 

But it is neither willful ignorance nor inad- 
vertence. We will show that Christian Science 
repudiates the divinely appointed evidence of 
Christ's divine sonship. Paul says, "declared to be 
the Son of God." 

But how? "With power [Gr. en dynamei], by 
the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4). In 
other words, the powerful and convincing evidence 
of his divine sonship was the resurrection from the 
dead. 

But Christian Science says that Jesus never died. 
His disciples saw him after his crucifixion and 
learned that he had not died. 

The resurrection of a sound and perfect body 
which had never tasted death would furnish but 
poor evidence of divine sonship. What but divine 
power could resurrect the really dead? Christian 
Scientists, therefore, assume the inconsistent atti- 
ture of either willfully and deliberately ignoring 
Christ's claim to be the Son of God, or of affirming 
the fact itself, yet repudiating the divinely appointed 
and irrefutably conclusive evidence thereof. 

So we see that if profession of a belief in the 
divinity of Christ as the Son of God forms any 
part of the Christian Science economy, it must be 
of such shallow and superficial character as amounts 
to a renunciation. 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

We are informed that the Lord's Supper, or 
eucharist, is not celebrated in any of the Christian 
Science meetings; and in our somewhat careful 
examination of the text-book we have found neither 
doctrine nor definition which appears to be in con- 
flict with this information. 

So we have shown that all these provisions of 
the gospel economy for reformation and develop- 
ment of Christian character ; viz. : faith, repentance, 
profession, baptism and the eucharist, are practi- 
cally repudiated. 

But this is not all. Paul says that "the gospel 
is the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1: 16). 
In his letter to the church at Corinth, after remind- 
ing it of his faithful preaching of the gospel, he 
proceeds to enumerate its basic principles thus: 

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I 
received, how that Christ died for our sins according 
to the scriptures; and was buried, and that he rose 
again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 
Cor. 15 : 3, 4). Now, is not an actual death the fun- 
damental fact or corner-stone of the entire gospel 
superstructure? Confinement of a living body in a 
stone sepulchre, neither filled nor hermetically sealed, 
and emergence therefrom after some fifty hours, 
would hardly cause a ripple of surprise, much less be 
heralded as a world-wonder. The actual death of 
Christ, and his resurrection "from the dead," not 
from a pretended or simulated death, constitutes the 
burden of the apostle's argument in this remarkable 
chapter. Read down to the twentieth verse. 
Christian Science teaches 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

283 : 8. "Sin, sickness and death . . . are illu- 
sions." 

428: 1. "There is no death." 

44 : 28. "Jesus . . . while in the tomb . . . was 
alive." 

46:2. "They (his disciples) saw him after his 
crucifixion, and learned that he had not died." 

Thus it is seen that Christian Science repudiates 
the fundamental facts of the gospel, ignores the 
means provided in the divine economy for its estab- 
lishment and rejects the ordinances prescribed for 
its continuation. 

Anticipating the charge of iconoclasm against 
this work, we promised in the preface to show that 
our Christian Science friends surpassed all other 
religious cults in iconoclasm or destructive didac- 
tics. In fulfillment of that promise we have shown 
that with one sweep of the magic wand of interpre- 
tation they seek to destroy the one essential foun- 
dation fact of the whole Christian world — the death 
of Christ, thereby challenging his divinity; for Paul 
says: "declared to be the Son of God with power, 
by the resurrection from the dead." 

The charge of iconoclasm comes with bad grace 
from the lips of our Christian Science friends, their 
doctrines being far more iconoclastic and destructive 
of modern Christianity than all other religious cults. 
They are not only destructive of the primary ele- 
ments of Christianity, but also of the basis on 
which every logical syllogism must rest. 

Logic is but the orderly and accurate process 
for ascertaining truth. 

(6) 81 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

But no truth can be predicated, much less 
proven, concerning matter or objects composed 
thereof which are non-existent, and of which the 
five senses— man's only means of taking cognizance 
thereof — are futile. 

Try it, reader, and when you have discovered 
means of cognizing non-existent objects through 
futile senses you will have a postulate for Christian 
Science logic. When you have found some fact 
susceptible of proof independent of matter and 
sensation, please inform the writer of the fact and 
the method of proving it. 

"For I testify to every man that heareth the 
words of the prophecy of this book, If any man 
shall add to these things, God shall add unto him 
the plagues that are written in this book. 

"And if any man shall take away from the 
words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take 
away his part out of the book of life, and out of 
the holy city, and from the things that are written 
in this book" (Rev. 22:18, 19). 

An actual pre-script, inter-script or post-script is 
no more essential in making an addition to an 
instrument than is a physical expurgation in detract- 
ing therefrom. Sinister interpretation may be 
equally effective, or even more dangerous, because 
difficult to detect. 

So-called Christian Science has done all three. 
It had added to the Bible a large volume — some 
eighteen thousand words — not as human exegesis, 
but as divine in its origin and infallibly authorita- 
tive. It 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

457: 1. "First registered revealed truth, uncon- 
taminated by human hypotheses." 

150:6. "Its appearing is the coming anew of 
the gospel . . . promised by the Master." 

150:13. "Now, as then (in the time of Christ) 
signs and wonders are wrought; but these are only 
to demonstrate its divine origin." 

95 : 22. "Christian Science — the divine reality." 

By interpretation so-called Christian Science has 
clothed certain passages of Scripture with shades 
of meaning never before suspected ; and has stricken 
down others well settled by the recognized rules of 
construction. 

In its glossary it has clothed names, words and 
phrases with ridiculous and contradictory definitions, 
without assigning either reason or authority. (See 
Glossary, pp. 579 to 599.) 

It has eliminated Matter, and hence, every mate- 
rial object mentioned in the Bible from Genesis to 
Revelation. 

It has repudiated the five corporeal senses, and 
thus deprived man of all reliable means of cog- 
nizing objective Nature or spiritual truth. 

It denies both the death and omnipotence of 
Jesus Christ, thereby making void the divinely 
appointed proof of his divinity. 

It rejects the infallibility and completeness of 
the Bible, claiming the right to post-scribe, expur- 
gate, and otherwise revise its teaching, setting 
aside all parts which seem to conflict with its 
doctrines, as 

521 : 26. "The exact opposite of scientific truth." 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

522:24. "Based on some hypothesis of error." 

And, finally, Christian Science characterizes all 
— even that contained in the Bible — which does not 
conform to, or is not reiterated in the denom- 
inational text-book, as untrue. 

202:13. "Christian Science lights the torch of 
spiritual understanding. Outside this Science, all 
is unstable error." 

545 : 18. "Outside of Christian Science all is 
vague and hypothetical, the opposite of truth." The 
Christian Science text-book 

456:27. "Contains all of Christian Science." 

As all of Christian Science is in the text-book, 
all outside the book is outside Christian Science. 
All, then, of the Bible which is outside of or not 
contained in the Christian Science text-book is 
"unstable error," "the opposite of truth," which is 
falsehood. Then, all the Bible which is not reiter- 
ated, reaffirmed in the Christian Science text-book 
is false. 

So we see that the parting injunctions of the 
sacred volume concerning additions and subtrac- 
tions, have been deliberately violated in every 
particular. The Bible has been explained away, 
interpreted away, super-scribed, inter-scribed, post- 
scribed and expurgated. 

Finally, all has been eliminated save that small 
part which the author of "Science and Health" saw 
fit to retain in the work which was to constitute 
the text-book of this modern cult. How shall they 
who do such things attain the blessings or escape 
the curses therein promised? 

84 



IS IT CHRISTIAN? 

Honest reader, candid and sincere seeker after 
truth, have not we fully redeemed our promise to 
show that so-called Christian Science controverts 
the divine record, usurps the divine prerogative and 
repudiates the divine economy? To recapitulate: 

It controverts the divine record in the following 
particulars : 

1. By characterizing certain parts thereof as 
false — the exact opposite of truth. 521 : 26 ; 522 : 3 ; 
522:20; 522:24. 

2. By sundry statements in direct conflict there- 
with. 44 : 28 ; 46 : 2. 

3. By assailing certain parts with irreverent and 
sarcastic ridicule. 531:32; 533:15. 

4. Denying the existence of Matter, and thereby 
denying by obvious implication every statement in 
the Bible concerning the existence, character and 
condition of every material object therein named. 

5. Denying the integrity of the five senses, by, 
through and to which alone God appeals to man in 
Revelation. 

6. Characterizing as illusions, myths, etc., sin, 
sickness and death, all of which the Bible every- 
where treats as solemn, momentous realities. 

7. And finally sweeping away the chief corner- 
stone — yea, the whole foundation of modern Chris- 
tianity — the death of Christ. 

It also usurps the divine prerogative in the fol- 
lowing particulars: 

1. Assumption of healing power superior to that 
of Christ." 147:15-28. 

2. Assumption of authority to revise, reform, 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

substitute, supplement and expurgate the Bible in 
word, letter and divine interpretation. 

3. Assumption of the character and authorship 
of the Holy Comforter. 331 : 31. 

4. Assuming to offer a more complete and per- 
manent remedy for sin than that contained in the 
Bible, and on more favorable terms. 

5. Claiming divine origin for its hypotheses, and 
hence divine character for their author. 

We have also shown the so-called Christian 
Science repudiates the entire divine economy by 
either opposing, ignoring or explaining away hear- 
ing, faith, repentance, public profession, baptism 
and the eucharist; all divinely appointed means of 
grace. These divine commands are not only sub- 
jected to direct assault, but also to ridicule, sar- 
casm and a deliberate and insidious eliminative 
interpretation. 

Reader, what say you to the so-called Christian 
Science hypotheses? Are they divine or diabolical 
in their origin? The author thereof and founder 
of the cult solemnly protests that they are not 
human. (See 457: 1.) 



Ill 

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT 
OF ITS OWN PRECEPT AND 
PRACTICE— IS IT CON- 
SISTENT? 



87 



III. 

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS OWN 
PRECEPT AND PRACTICE— IS IT CONSISTENT? 

Direct Antagonism Between Its Precept and Practice in 
Commonplace Matters — Inconsistency of Its Psycholog- 
ical Doctrines — Self-contradictory Teachings as to Its 
Purely Metaphysical Character — Conflicting Theories as 
to Cause and Cure of Disease and Disabilities — Repu- 
diates Its Own Claim to Be Based on the Bible — Chris- 
tian Science Relating to Sex — The Ten Counts in Our 
Indictment — Conclusion. 

IN the chapters on Christian Science in the light 
of reason and revelation numerous quotations 
were made from its denominational text-book in 
proof of its denial of three propositions universally 
recognized as essential elements in every conclusion 
at which the human mind may arrive by logical 
process. A few sentences, therefore, will suffice 
to show that so-called Christian Science denies, 
emphatically and unqualifiedly: 

1. The existence of matter. 

2. The integrity of the five senses. 

3. The reality of universally obvious phenomena. 
421 : 18. "There is no Matter." 

110:2. "All Science (C. S.) contradicts for- 
ever that matter can be actual." 

477: 11. "Christian Science . . . declares the 
corporeal senses to be mortal and erring illusions." 

283 : 8. "Matter and its effects, sin, sickness and 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

death, are not facts. They are not ideas, but illu- 
sions." 

Although our Christian Science friends so 
repeatedly, emphatically and categorically deny the 
existence of matter and the integrity of the senses, 
it can not have escaped the notice of even the 
superficial observer that it is in theory only ; for 
they recognize the existence of matter by dealing 
with it just as others do; and they recognize the 
reliability of the five corporeal senses by trusting 
to them as implicitly for guidance in every act per- 
formed and every word spoken as do other people. 

They recognize the reality of sin, sickness and 
death by committing sin perhaps no less frequently 
than others, by becoming sick, being disabled or 
injured by violence, and eventually yielding to 
death, just as do other people. Or if they yield to 
disease, injufy or disability less readily or cling 
to life with more tenacity, it has not yet become 
obvious to those who prepare statistics and collate 
facts for the sanitary and mortuary tables. 

Make a contract with a Scientist, and he will 
insist on delivery of the material goods or the 
payment of material money, just as will one pro- 
fessing to believe in their material character. Sell 
him an article, and he examines its quality by means 
of these senses which he believes to be solely 
"avenues and instruments of error," whose testi- 
mony is reversed by Christian Science "at every 
point." If it be food, he will inspect it with the 
same care by means of these futile senses, and 
insist on its containing the same material nutritive 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

and palatable elements as do other people. All this 
while he believes that 

416 : 32. "Their bodies are sustained by Spirit, 
not matter." And 

425 : 16. "Matter never sustained existence." 

Assault our Christian Science friend and frac- 
ture a bone, and he will invoke the law, although 
he claims that 

402 : 16. "No breakage or dislocation can really 
occur." And his own 

397:15. "Thought is more potent to make the 
injury real than the violence itself." 

He will testify that he saw you strike the blow, 
heard the concussion, felt the contusion and suf- 
fered pain from the injury; although his text-book 
teaches, and he asserts that these senses by which 
this knowledge was acquired, are 

293 : 32. "Avenues and instruments of error." 

213-16. "That their testimony is false." That 
they are 

488 : 19. "Mortal beliefs, whose testimony can 
neither be true of man nor of his maker." 

Without the proper arrangement of the material 
vocal organs, and a reliable sense of hearing, what 
effect would be produced by the well-groomed and 
richly clad speakers in the employ of the Mother 
Church who go to and fro proclaiming the attrac- 
tive features of the Christian Science doctrines with 
such energy and emphasis, but are careful not to 
touch on the points which are being considered in 
this treatise? Without the proper arrangement of 
matter — paper, ink and type — where would be the 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

printed or written thesis, even the text-book of the 
cult? And without reliable sense of sight, to what 
use could it be put? Yet Christian Science denies 
the existence of the one and the reliability of the 
other. She is absolutely dependent on these two 
witnesses, Matter and Sensation, for evidence con- 
cerning each and every act, fact or conclusion 
imparted to a credulous public, yet she brands them 
both as being incompetent and incredible. 

Our Christian Science friends disseminate their 
doctrines by means of paper, type and ink and vocal 
organs composed of matter which they assert does 
not exist; they sustain them by arguments which 
deny the basic postulate on which every logical 
conclusion must rest ; and they ask us to take 
cognizance of them by means of the senses which 
they claim are . incapable of transmitting any relia- 
ble impression. They base their claim to a favor- 
able judgment on the very kind of evidence which 
they denounce as incompetent, incredible, futile. 

To meet the exigencies of temperature our 
Christian Science friend resorts to the same means 
as do others. He dons his ulster or seeks artificially 
heated apartments in zero weather, and uses ice, 
shade and light clothing to mitigate the heat of 
summer. Why? His book teaches that 

374:27. "Heat and cold are products of Mind." 
If by exposure 

384:9. "He incurs the penalty, it is but a mortal 
belief and man has only to enter his protest in order 
to annul it." 

Our Scientist friend suffers the penalty of being 

92 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

consumed by the devouring flame, scorched by the 
summer heat and chilled or frozen by zero temper- 
ature, just as we are if exposed thereto. Why does 
not he "enter his protest and annul it"? 

He is absolutely dependent on food to sustain 
the body, although it is composed of matter which 
is non-existent; and although his book teaches 

425 : 16. That "matter never sustained exist- 
ence." And for nourishment 

206:17. "Spirit, not matter is the source of 
supply." 

He can not consistently eat or drink to gratify 
appetite nor to allay hunger and thirst, for 

405 : 29. "The pains of sense are less harmful 
than its pleasures." 

To maintain a wholesome temperature, renew 
the ever-wasting energies of the body, and to meet 
all the other exigencies of life, health, pleasure and 
utility, our Christian Science friend renders the 
same unreserved homage and implicit obedience to 
the mandates of sense as we do, while denouncing 
it as futile except for the purposes of falsehood 
and deception. 

Why do not our Christian Science friends deter- 
mine their conduct at the point of the convictions 
which they so emphatically assert? Why do they 
repudiate, so uniformly, in practice the doctrines 
they so confidently affirm in theory? There is-^- 
there can be — but one reason. They are not suffi- 
ciently assured of their correctness to depend on 
them in the ordinary exigencies of life. Their 
convictions are sufficiently intense to serve as a 

93 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

cult basis, but not as a principle by which to deter- 
mine conduct. 

Why take precaution to avoid the impact of the 
onrushing locomotive or the flight of the fright- 
ened team? 

209:1. "Man has a perfect, indestructible life." 

402: 16. "No breakage nor dislocation can really 
occur." 

424:11. "Under divine providence there can be 
no accident." 

402:17. "That accidents and injuries can kill a 
man is not true." 

Even with the jugular vein severed, 

122:24. "To spiritual sense and in Science life 
goes on unchanged." 

These quotations are not predicated of a future 
life, as has been fully shown. But see 150:13; 
232:16; 271:26; 282:1 and 374:14. 

Nor does it appear that we will have jugular 
veins or other material organs in the future life, 
nor, if so, what will be their functions. 

Do our Christian Science friends act in con- 
formity to the doctrines which they so zealously 
and confidently proclaim? We all well know they 
do not. And why not? Simply because they fear 
the consequences. He who refuses to conform his 
life to the convictions which he solemnly ai'ozus, 
thereby impeaches either his own intelligence or his 
own integrity. 

As to the doctrine of the unreality of sin, sick- 
ness and death, so-called Christian Science is equally 
inconsistent, whether considered in relation to its 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

other tenets or to the practice of its adherents. 

283 : 8. "Sin, sickness and death are not facts. 
. . . They are not ideas, but illusions." 

188 : 3. "What is termed disease does not exist." 

417:11. "Mind is God, and therefore can not 
be sick; what is termed Matter can not be sick." 

All concepts are classified under the heads of 
Mind, Matter and Force. 

As force is but a quality or manifestation of 
either Mind or Matter, and possesses neither intelli- 
gence nor sensation, it can not be sick. 

If, therefore, neither Mind, Matter nor Force 
can be sick, there can be no such thing as disease 
or disability. 

As ruptures, fractures, lesions, contusions and 
abrasions are placed in the same category, and rest 
on the same principle, they are impossible. 

But how are these passages to be reconciled 
with others in the text-book which treat disease, 
disability and death as serious realities? 

147:15. S. & H. contains the complete Science 
of mind healing. 

456:28. "Contains the whole of Science of heal- 
ing through Mind." 

109:11-27. The author spent years of self-de- 
nial, painful application, self-immolation and prayer 
in order to attain by divine revelation the secret 
of healing, which she has at great sacrifice given 
to the world. Her followers are engaged in dis- 
seminating her doctrines at immense expense and 
constant effort — and all for the sole purpose of 
combating that which is unreal — a myth, a man 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

of straw, a thing which "has no foundation in 
fact." 415:4. 

The inspired formula for destroying this non- 
existent unreality has been committed to paper by 
type and ink composed of non-existent matter, and 
communicated to the perishing world by non-ex- 
istent vocal organs through the medium of the five 
senses, all of which are incapable of transmitting 
reliable impressions; and last, but not least, it is 
emphasized by logical propositions having no basic 
postulate. 

Although death is said to be "unreal," an "illu- 
sion," "a dream which comes with the night and 
disappears with the light," we read at 

177:25. Swallowing poison will cause death. 

379:25. "Fevers are errors of various types . . . 
pictures depicted by mortal mind on the body." 
Which, 

380:1. "Unless destroyed by (C) Science, end 
in a belief called death." 

Then any fever, typhoid, malarial, scarlet, spot- 
ted (cerebro spinal meningitis), no matter how 
mild or how malignant, unless destroyed by (Chris- 
tian) Science, will end in a belief called death." 

Any patient, then, suffering from any kind of 
fever (temperature above normal or 98 degrees 
Fahrenheit), no matter of what degree nor from 
what cause, must result in "a belief called death," 
unless destroyed by Science, which in the Christian 
Science text-book means Christian Science. 127 : 9. 

Notice the phrase, "a belief called death." But 
if death is but a belief, as taught all through the 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

text-book, how can one be subject to the one 
who repudiates the other? The two being identical, 
subjection to the one is contingent or dependent on 
acquiescence in the reality of the other. There- 
fore, before the Christian Scientist can commit sin, 
become sick or yield to death he muo'c acquiesce in 
the belief of their reality. When he does this he 
repudiates the fundamental element, the chief cor- 
ner-stone in the Christian Science doctrine; viz.: 
The unreality of universally obvious phenomena; 
for no phenomena are more universally obvious 
than sin, sickness and death. Thus every Christian 
Scientist, 

When he of sombre robe, relentless hand, 
And visage grim and ghastly, his demand 

Asserts, 

repudiates the "chief corner-stone of his cherished 
doctrine" and accepts calmly the very opposite of 
that which he had so ardently and diligently pro- 
claimed during his religious life. 

227 : 20. "Christian Science raises the standard 
of liberty, and cries, Follow me! Escape the bond- 
age of sin, sickness and death." 

What would be thought of one running through 
a stone quarry at high speed during a drizzling rain 
beseeching people to flee from the impending flame, 
when there was not a spark of fire nor a particle 
of combustible material in sight? Or of one warn- 
ing people to hasten to their caves and storm cel- 
lars for protection from an impending storm amidst 
a dead calm on a cloudless summer day? 

Is it less inconsistent for so-called Christian 

(7) 97 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

Science to expend countless millions and untold 
energy to induce people to fly for their lives and 
take refuge in her bosom from a myth, an illusion, 
an unreality, a mere belief without any foundation 
in truth, a mortal dream? 

If sin, sickness and death are myths, illusions, 
mortal beliefs, with no foundation in truth, as the 
so-called Scientist professes to believe, being free 
from the belief, he should be free from the evil 
with which it is identical, for 

184:6. "Belief produces the result of belief, 
and the penalty lasts as long, and is inseparable 
from it." 

But if sin, disease and death are realities, and 
Christian Science constitutes the universal and 
infallible remedy 

149: 11. Which never varies. Is as certain as 

233 : 25. "The quotient in division." 

84 : 32. "More accurate than an astronomical 
calculation." 

Why should not the same result be reached? 

In theory our Christian Science friends have a 
divinely appointed, and hence infallible remedy for 
every ill, mental, spiritual and physical, to which 
the human family is subject. Knowledge requisite 
to success is neither extensive nor difficult of appli- 
cation. Because 

329:4. "A little understanding of Christian 
Science proves the truth of all that I say of it." 
And as to its application, 

462 : 16. "There is nothing difficult or toilsome 
in the task." 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

In practice, however, their advantage in curing - , 
relieving or preventing disease and postponing death 
has been so near negligible as to have escaped the 
notice of those charged with the important task of 
obtaining and collating sanitary and mortuary sta- 
tistics ; and hence they have been ignored as factors 
in the life insurance equation by both the Govern- 
ment statistician and the great financial institutions 
of the country. 

If results sustained the claim of our Christian 
Science friends that, as to them, sin, sickness and 
death are unreal ; or that the doctrines constituted 
an infallible remedy therefor, immunity among its 
adherents ought to be wellnigh universal, and the 
most casual observer could not help noticing the 
fact. But such fact has not yet attracted the notice 
of those charged by the Government and the great 
financial institutions with the exercise of micro- 
scopic scrutiny along these lines. 

And why? Simply because such claims are 
absolutely baseless. 

They rest on no rational hypothesis, and are 
contradicted by universal experience. 

An illusion is defined to be a false perception ; 
a deception. 

Therefore when the true perception is appre- 
hended, the false one is destroyed. So, if sin, 
sickness and death are illusions — false perceptions 
— they can not possibly co-exist with the true per- 
ception of their character. The Christian Science 
text -book professes to contain, and our Christian 
Science friends profess to hold, the true perception, 

99 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

and hence must of necessity be free from the 
false, the illusion, the reality — immune from these 
evils. 

If the reality and the illusion are identical, must 
not he who is immune from the illusion also be 
immune from the reality? And must not he who 
is subject to the illusion be also subject to the 
reality ? 

472:26. "The only reality of n'n, sickness and 
death is the awful fact that unrealities seem real 
to human belief." 

If, therefore, there were a grain of truth in 
these Christian Science doctrines, it would result in 
the Christian Science adherent being always and 
wholly free from sin, sickness and d~ath ; and like- 
wise that all who reject their doctrine would be 
always and wholly under their dominion. 

Must not this be true in view of the following 
quotations ? 

149:11. The rule and its perfectness in (C) 
Science never vary." 

274:22. "Divine (Christian) Science is absolute, 
and permits no half-way position in learning the 
principle and establishing the rule by demonstra- 
tion." 

Ask the Christian Science practitioner to restore 
an amputated limb or give you a definite formula 
therefor, and will he do it? You know he will not. 
Yet he claims that this is within the power of 
Christian Science teaching. 212: 5. 

As easily as Nature restores the lobster's claw. 
489:2-8. 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

And with only "a little understanding of Chris- 
tian Science doctrines." 329 : 4. 

Our Christian Science friends say that the 
rule and its perfectness never vary. 149: 11. That 
it can be known "more accurately than an astron- 
omer can calculate an eclipse," and is as certain 
as a syllogism or an accurately stated sum in 
arithmetic. 192 : 2. It requires but "a little under- 
standing" of the Christian Science doctrines in 
order to demonstrate its inerrancy. 329 : 4 ; and 
is neither difficult nor toilsome of application. 
462:16. 

What would be thought of a system of logic 
or mathematics the founder and advocates of which 
refused a single public demonstration in answer to 
the demands of an anxious, inquiring and unprej- 
udiced public? 

It would be said that the system itself was a 
fraud or its advocates impostors; perhaps both. 
Claiming absolute perfection — inerrancy, divine 
infallibility — for their system, our Christian Science 
friends refuse to give a public demonstration or cite 
a single well-authenticated case of extraordinary 
cure under conditions rendering imposture or mis- 
take impossible, or even improbable. Is this con- 
sistent ? 

There is another principle asserted with equal 
emphasis and without qualification in one part of 
the text-book, and as positively and emphatically 
denied, both in theory and practice, in another. It 
is the purely mental or metaphysical character of 
the system. 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

453 : 29. "A Christian Scientist's medicine is 
Mind." 

421:27. "You should not build it (disease) up 
by . . . making a single material application for its 
relief." 

445 : 7. "Teach the fatal effect of dwarfing 
spiritual understanding by recourse to material 
means for healing." 

459:16. "It is like arming a maniac or blind 
man with a sharp knife and turning him loose in 
the streets of a crowded city." 

483:5. "We classify disease as error which 
nothing but Mind can heal." 

402 : 2. "Christian Science is always the most 
skilful surgeon." 

459:31. "The Scientist" never recommends hy- 
giene nor manipulates. 

Numerous passages in the text-book show the 
Christian Science system to be exclusively mental, 
and that all material means for the relief of both 
injuries or disease are repudiated. 

348:9. "One disease is as much a delusion as 
another." 

But how do these propositions consist with 
recommendations of an entirely different character 
appearing in other parts of the book? 

401:29. "Until the advancing age admits the 
efficacy and supremacy of Mind, it is better to 
leave the adjustment of broken bones and disloca- 
tions to the fingers of a surgeon." 

But why does any part of a divinely infallible 
system for healing have to be postponed till the 

102 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

advancing age admits its efficacy? Is Divine Mind, 
Infinite All-power, less skillful in surgery than in 
chemistry and materia medicaf Certainly not, 
since it can restore the amputated limb as easily 
as the sensation of pain can return, or as readily 
as Nature restores the lobster's claw. 212 : 5 and 
489:2-8. Why is this important branch of the 
healing art dependent for success on the acquies- 
cence of "the advancing age"? 

Would not a demonstration that it is "neither 
difficult nor toilsome" ; "may be known more 
accurately than an astronomer can calculate an 
eclipse," and as certain as a mathematical problem, 
assist in advancing the age to that plane of intelli- 
gence and efficiency so desirable in relieving human 
suffering ? 

Christian Science teaches that 

159:30. "Man's belief produces disease and all 
its symptoms." 

194:6. "A change in belief changes all the 
physical symptoms." 

385 : 27. "The opposite belief would produce the 
opposite result." 

145 : 10. "Truth subdues the human belief in 
disease," and recovery will come to the patient. 

Wounds from accident or violence are produced 
in the same way and are the result of the same 
cause, belief. 

397 : 14. "When an accident happens, . . . your 
thought is more potent, . . . than the accident 
itself, to make the injury real." 

So we see that wounds, fractures, abrasions, con- 

1.03 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

tusions, dislocations, and all other cases requiring 
surgical attention, are placed by Christian Science 
on exactly the same basis, attributed to the same 
cause and subjected to the same treatment, as dis- 
ease. They are said to be curable by "mental 
surgery alone" (402:4-9); viz.: change of belief. 
155:1-8. 

If, then, they are due to the same cause — 
belief in their reality — and yield to the same treat- 
ment — belief in their unreality — if the one must be 
postponed "till the advancing age admits" its 
efficacy, so must the other. Because 

184:6. "Belief (in the reality of disease) pro- 
duces the results of belief (reality) and the penalty 
(reality) lasts as long as the belief, and is insep- 
arable from it." 

Why does the founder of Christian Science 
draw, and its adherents acquiesce in, a distinction 
between medicine and surgery which is based on no 
principle, but in direct conflict with the funda- 
mentals of the text-book? We need not go far to 
find the answer. Conditions requiring surgery are 
usually readily ascertained immediately after, if 
not before, operating; results appear so quickly 
and success or failure is so obvious, and their 
cause so apparent, that little chance is left for 
deception, that prime factor in so many systems 
of mental therapeutics. Modern surgery had been 
recently placed on so purely a scientific basis, its 
principles so accurately ascertained, and its practice 
attended with such phenomenal success, that some 
rea^n had to be assigned for the conspicuous and 

104 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

universal failures of the metaphysicians, or all claim 
of virtue in their system had to be abandoned. 
They give no case where competent, reliable and 
disinterested judges have duly ascertained the 
malady to have been structural in character, malig- 
nant in type and the sequence of healing obvious 
or even probable. 

We quote once more from the text-book to 
show that we have neither perverted nor exagger- 
ated the claims of our Christian Science friends in 
regard to structural deformities. A pre-natal 
deformity in one thirty years old 

178 : 12. "Is not more difficult to cure : for we 
wrest it from human mind and base the cure on 
Divine Mind, to which all things are possible." 

Why should a system capable of removing pre- 
natal deformities, restoring lost limbs and other 
organs, and keeping life unchanged with the jug- 
ular severed, abandon this important branch of the 
healing art to physical means — methods of human 
or mortal mind — not only futile, but as disastrous 
as "arming a maniac with a sharp knife, and 
turning him loose in the crowded streets of a 
city"? See 459:16. 

We quote a single sentence bristling with points 
obviously and inexplicably inconsistent with Chris- 
tian Science fundamentals as set forth in the book. 

464:14. "If from an injury or any cause a 
Christian Scientist were seized with pain so violent 
that he could not treat himself mentally, — and the 
Scientists had failed to relieve him, — he could 
call a surgeon to give him a hypodermic injection." 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

A pain is a symptom indicating an abnormal, 
distressed condition of that part of the body in 
which it is located; hence, without material organs 
or parts there could be no location, hence no pain. 
Pain is communicated to the mind by the sense of 
touch or feeling, which Christian Science declares 
is futile, incapable of transmitting any reliable 
information to the human mind. Here, then, the 
founder of the cult admits the falsity of the first 
two fundamentals of Christian Science ; viz. : the 
non-existence of Matter, and the futility of sensa- 
tion; for any accurate recognition of real pain 
involves the existence of material organs or parts 
in which the pain is located, as well as the absolute 
integrity of the sense of touch by which the sensa- 
tion is communicated. 

But how can pain prevent mental treatment? 
If mind is well, how can the Scientist's body, 
which is "but a false concept" (177:10), prevent 
its action? For Mind is never sick or disabled. 
417:11; 393:29. And, 

385:20. "Mind determines whether the flesh 
shall be painful, swollen or discolored." 

Christian Science teaches that supremacy of 
mind brings immunity from disease and disability 
of all kinds; also that the true Scientist holds that 
supremacy of mind. But in this short sentence it 
is conceded that Mind, though supreme, is impotent 
until opiates, narcotics or anesthetics have reduced 
pain, which is but one of the symptoms of dis- 
ease. 

By the direct admission of the author, the great 

106 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

therapeutic agency of the cult is paralyzed in the 
Scientist sufferer and his Scientist fellows until" 
the surgeon who is not a Scientist administers the 
"inanimate drug," which has no healing power, and 
the use of which constitutes an "impeachment of 
God's method." 463 : 29 and 202 : 26-30. 

Here the sufferer is a Scientist, who should be 
immune from pain, because free from the illusion 
with which it is identical. His attendant prac- 
titioners are Scientists, who profess to have the 
divinely appointed and infallible remedy, not only 
for the pain itself, but for the malady of which it 
is but a symptom. Yet failure is acknowledged and 
an injection is recommended of a drug which 
possesses no virtue, and by a surgeon whose sys- 
tem is not only futile, but fraught with all the 
frightful consequences of "arming a maniac with 
a sharp knife and turning him loose in the crowded 
streets of a city." Being impotent to allay the pain, 
which is but a symptom, on what principle may 
Christian Science treatment claim infallibility in 
preventing and destroying disease itself? But 
Christian Science says: 

159:30. "Belief produces disease and all its 
symptoms." And 

184:6. "The penalty (result) of belief lasts as 
long, and is inseparable from it." 

But how can one who understands and avoids 
the cause (belief) of an evil (disease), and is in 
charge of, and being treated by experts, who also 
understand and avoid the cause ; how can such a 
one be subject to and suffer from the effect of 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

such cause, the disease? Much more, how can 
such a one be dependent for relief therefrom on 
those who do not understand, and hence do not 
even profess or attempt to avoid the cause? 

The so-called Scientist fully understands and 
avoids the cause (belief), yet he suffers from the 
effect. He has the divinely appointed infallible and 
easily applied remedy, which, under the direction 
of himself and fellow-expert practitioners, proves 
a failure. He is then recommended to apply for 
and obtain relief from those who are ignorant of 
the cause, and hence make no effort to avoid it; and 
also, to submit to treatment which is not only use- 
less, futile, God-dishonoring, but as dangerous to 
the patient as would be to the crowds in a city 
street, a maniac armed with a sharp knife. The 
writer of these pages can not conceive of doctrines 
more obviously antithetic or irreconcilably conflict- 
ing. It is tantamount to saying that he who knows 
and avoids the cause is more liable to experience 
the effect than he who does neither. Could a prop- 
osition be more anomalous? 

In so-called Christian Science teaching the heal- 
ing power is, in various places, attributed to numer- 
ous and variant agencies. But the author has not 
seen fit to so classify the maladies or the agencies 
as to indicate what particular agency is adapted to 
each particular malady: nor has she explained the 
underlying principle so that the practitioner or the 
patient may be enabled to determine for himself. 

From the language used, 296:30 to 297: 10 of 
the text-book the inference seems obvious that any 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

physical condition of the body will be produced 
when suggested by belief ; and from 145 : 10, that 
disease can only be cured by subduing human belief 
therein. 

194 : 6. "A change of belief changes all the 
physical symptoms." 

184:6. "The penalty (result) of belief is insep- 
arable from it." 

Here it clearly appears that it is a belief in the 
reality of disease itself which is productive thereof. 
In other words, disease is superinduced by, depend- 
ent on, co-existent with, and inseparable from a 
belief in its own reality. 

149: 11. "The rule and its perfectness of opera- 
tion in Science never vary." 

So, we see that it is the mental attitude toward 
disease — the assent or dissent to its reality or unre- 
ality — which produces and cures it. 

And the principle is by Christian Science applied 
equally to fractures, dislocations, dismemberments, 
wounds and injuries from violence or accident. 

154:30. "Thought governs wounds and injuries 
from violence, as well as disease." 

397:15. "When an accident happens, . . . your 
thought is more potent than the accident itself to 
make the injury real." 

It likewise applies the principle to reconstructive 
processes in healing. 

422 : 18. "The changes which go on in mortal 
mind serve to reconstruct the body." 

425 : 23. "Consciousness constructs a better body 
when you have conquered faith in Matter." 

109 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

Nor does it stop here, but claims that moral 
and spiritual ailments are dependent on the same 
principle and respond to the same process. 

404:27. "Healing the sick and reforming the 
sinner are one and the same in C. S., require the 
same method, — inseparable in truth." 

We see, then, that the Christian Science sys- 
tem of treatment ignores all distinction between 
abnormal human conditions ; moral, spiritual and 
physical ; and among physical conditions all dis- 
tinction between the functional, organic and struc- 
tural or mechanical. Their cause and cure depends 
on our mental attitude toward the reality of the 
malady and our confidence in the remedy, rather 
than any curative power or virtue in either the 
treatment or manner of administering it. 

If, in the phenomena of healing, moral, spiritual 
and physical, including the mechanical and struc- 
tural, mental attitude can supply the link of causa- 
tion between objects and conditions not otherwise 
or previously related, on what principle are we to 
exclude its controlling influence from the realms 
of inorganic mechanics, mathematics and chemistry? 

The escape of blood through a paralyzed or 
atrophied heart-valve, or from a ruptured vein or 
artery, is no more mechanical than is the flow of 
water through a crevasse in the banks of a 
stream. 

Action of the acids on the metals in an electric 
battery is no more chemical than is the action of 
an alkaloid poison on the mucous membrane of the 
human stomach. The filling of the hull of a dis- 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

abled ship, thereby causing it to sink, is no more 
dependent on lapse of time than is the filling of 
the human lungs, thereby causing one to drown; 
nor is the expelling the water from the vessel's 
hull, and causing to refloat, any more mechanical 
than is expelling the same element from the human 
lungs, thereby bringing resuscitation. If, then, the 
Scientist can accomplish the one, why not the 
other? Simply because the only influence which 
mind has, or can exert, over matter in the accom- 
plishment of any beneficent purpose, must be 
through physical force intelligently directed. 

The doctrine of supremacy of mind over matter 
independent of application by physical force is a 
dangerous one; and the author of "Science and 
Health," in her effort to avoid the ditch of error 
on the one side, has plunged headlong into the 
abyss of inconsistency on the other. 

In attempting to explain how poison inadver- 
tently taken could produce death if such effect 
depended on belief, the founder of Christian Science 
said: 

177:26. "Death comes from belief as if inten- 
tionally taken." But 

178:5. "The result comes from the belief of 
the majority outside, not from that of the minority 
inside the death chamber." 

155: 5. "When the sick recover by use of drugs 
it is the general belief culminating in the individual 
faith which heals; and according to this individual 
faith (belief) will the effect be." 

155 : 10. "The druggist, physician, the nurse, 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

equip the medicine with their individual beliefs ; and 
they of the majority prevail." 

It is, then, the mental attitude toward the 
remedy proposed, rather than any virtue in the 
remedy itself, which causes the cure. The "inani- 
mate drug," which is impotent, and the use of 
which constitutes "an impeachment of God's 
power" ; and which is fraught with all the fearful 
consequences of "arming a maniac with a sharp 
knife, and turning him loose in the streets of a 
crowded city," is just as potent to heal, if equipped 
with the individual faith of the druggist, doctor 
and nurse, and sustained by a majority outside 
the sick chamber, as is "infinite All-power" divine 
Science, "which the author reduced to human 
apprehension and named Christian Science." (See 
471:29.) 

If so-called Christian Science has no power to 
cure except when believed, and any other treatment 
is equally potent under like conditions, where is 
the advantage? That it actually has no more 
power than other systems under like conditions, is 
an unavoidable inference and obvious conclusion 
from the foregoing quotations from the Christian 
Science text-book prepared by the founder, circu- 
lated by the Mother Church and sanctioned by the 
adherents of the cult everywhere. 

Though the Christian Science text-book asserts 
with confidence — yea, dogmatism — that both disease 
and its cure are the result of belief, it does not 
attempt to point out by whom the belief must be 
held in each particular case; nor why it must be 

112 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

held by the patient in one case, by those about him 
in another, and by a majority of those at a distance 
in still another. 

376:20. "The efficient remedy (for fever) is to 
destroy the patient's unfortunate belief." 

412 : 20. "Argue with your patient that he is not 
sick." 

411:32. "If you succeed in removing fear 
(belief in the reality) your patient is healed." 

From these cases it appears that it is the belief 
of the patient in the reality of the malady which 
constitutes its cause, and his belief in its unreality 
which produces its cure. 

413:31. "A child can have worms if you say 
so, or any other malady held in belief by those 
about him." 

Here it is the belief of those about him. But 
in the case of one who swallows poison without 
knowing its character, it is 

178 : 5. "The majority outside, not the minority 
inside the death room." 

But in the case of one who is benefited by medi- 
cine, it is 

155 : 10. "The chemist, druggist, doctor, nurse, 
who equip their medicine with their faith, and the 
beliefs that are in the majority rule." 

So we see that Christian Science, divine Mind — 
infinite All-power — has delegated the healing power 
to three different, probably conflicting, and possi- 
bly diametrically opposite, agencies. When each is 
being exerted with that irresistible force requisite 
to the infallibility claimed for the Christian Science 
(8) 113 - 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

system, what will become of the poor victim's body? 
Suppose the patient is wholly unconscious, so that 
he has no belief and is incapable of forming one. 
Suppose the Christian Science practitioners present 
for treatment believe he has typhoid fever, but that 
it is unreal — an illusion, as is all disease; and sup- 
pose that the majority outside the sick-room do not 
know anything about it, or are informed that he is 
bleeding to death from a wound. Which belief will 
prevail? The number, proximity and degree of 
intensity necessary to inoculate the child with 
internal parasites as above suggested, and the means 
for counteracting the effect, would be interesting; 
but the text-book does not contain this important 
information. 

But what majority, and of whom must it consist 
outside the sick-room in order to control disease by 
belief? Must it be a majority of all the people of 
the world? Of every class and age? If not, what 
part? Must it be of some particular class, or of 
some locality? Must it consist of those bearing 
some relationship of blood, ties, social or religious, 
to be patient? How are we to obtain the necessary 
consensus of opinion, unless we are informed as to 
where and of what class it must consist? Will 
some Christian Science friend inform us? Here is 
important information not contained in the text- 
book, with all its claims for infallibility, perfection 
and divine origin. 

We next observe that in many places in the 
Christian Science text-book the healing power is 
attributed to Truth. 

114 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

229:31. "The remedy for sickness is always 
truth." 

191 : 31. "Truth is able to cast out all the ills 
of the flesh." 

318:23. "The Science of Mind treats disease as 
error and heals with Truth." 

371 : 31. "Truth is an alterative of the entire 
system, and can make it every whit whole." 

We unhesitatingly acknowledge that Truth, so 
definitely ascertained as to be available, so accu- 
rately classified as to be readily adapted to the 
purpose in hand, and so intelligently applied as to 
be effective, will enable man to carry out any 
design within the range of human wisdom and 
skill. That there are feats — perhaps diseases — 
absolutely beyond human control, I doubt not; and 
that there are others within the range of possibility, 
the truth relative to which has not yet been suf- 
ficiently ascertained, classified and rendered prac- 
ticable to place them within the range of human 
skill and strength, is also doubtless true. But that 
truth — abstract truth — undiscovered, unclassified and 
unapplied through material means can be all-power- 
ful in curing disease, or of even contributing to the 
ever-present, reconstructive and recuperative agen- 
cies of Nature in relieving them, we deny. Abstract 
or theoretical truth, independent of all material 
agencies, never did, and never will change the 
character, condition or location of a single phys- 
ical object; and we are justified in assuming that 
this is the kind of truth meant by the author of 
the text-book, for she condemns unsparingly all 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

material means of treating disease. We quote: 

453 : 30. Christian Science is mind. Never 
resorts to hygiene or manipulates. 

463 : 28. The Christian Science law of healing 
spiritual, not material. 

463:29. "The sick are not healed by the inan- 
imate drug." 

459 : 12. "Any attempt to heal with mortal mind 
(material means) must prove abortive." 

421 : 29. A single material application tends to 
aggravate disease. 

So the direct statements of the text-book itself 
force us to the conclusion that when cures are 
attributed to Truth, it means truth dissociated from 
and independent of all material means and methods. 

But suppose it is conceded that the author meant 
practical truth, intelligently applied; what truth, or 
phase thereof, is requisite to the cure of disease? 
Not all truth, for much remains undiscovered. The 
practitioner may hold much truth which bears no 
possible relation to the patient's condition, and be 
wholly ignorant of all which does. 

Will that avail ? Certainly not. Will a historical 
or chronological truth cure a structural or organic 
malady? Any good resulting from truth indis- 
criminately applied is purely accidental; while the 
chances of its working harm are infinitely greater. 
The only kind of truth which can possibly relieve 
or cure any kind of disease or disability is that 
special phase, or group of phases, which bears some 
remedial relation to the particular abnormal con- 
dition of the particular organ or member affected. 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

True Science assumes the function of discover- 
ing truth and classifying it by ascertaining and 
denning its relation to every conceivable object and 
condition, so that one may be applied to the other 
with certain effect. He who struggles with a diffi- 
cult problem needs that especial phase of truth 
which is adapted to its solution; and no other can 
serve his purpose, though equal in verity and 
infinitely greater in importance. Here so-called 
Christian Science utterly fails. It makes no dis- 
crimination between the adapted and the unadapted 
truth. It advocates truth ! truth ! ! without discrim- 
ination as the sovereign remedy for all human ills; 
and by implication so strong as to be conclusive, 
teaches that any psychological truth will solve every 
conceivable sanitary and structural problem which 
may involve the human body. In this it is vague, 
conjectural, inexplicable, contradictory. 

Thus does Christian Science trifle with Truth 
by a word-play on the term itself, and in a manner 
not possible to be reconciled with its general teach- 
ings. 

Christian Science defines error as "the opposite 
of truth, hence the opposite of God" ; a "coward 
before Truth," and as having no real existence. 
287 : 23 ; 368 : 6. It also says : 

202:15. "All outside Christian Science is unsta- 
ble error." 

545-18. "Outside Christian Science all is the 
opposite of Truth." 

All material remedies and means for healing 
are "outsiue the Christian Science system," because 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

not included, but unsparingly condemned therein. 
Hence they are all "unstable error." 

But material means are placed on the same 
footing, conceded exactly the same power, on 
exactly the same principle in healing as is Christian 
Science, divine Mind, infinite All-power; viz.: on 
condition that they are sustained by belief. 

155:5. "When the sick recover by the use of 
drugs it is the general belief culminating in the 
individual faith ; and according to this faith will 
(not may) the effect be." 

155:10. "The chemist, druggist, doctor and 
nurse equip their medicine with their faith, and 
the beliefs of the majority rule." 

177:25. "If one takes poison by mistake it is 
human belief that causes death as directly as if 
intentionally taken." 

178:5. "But it is the belief of the majority 
outside the sick room, rather than the minority 
inside." 

So we see that Error, the skulking coward, is as 
able to heal as is Christian Science, divine Science, 
divine Mind, infinite All-power, if equipped with 
the beliefs of the majority ; and no more is claimed 
for Truth. Moreover, Infallible Truth, Divine 
Mind, Divine Science, which the author reduced to 
human apprehension and called it Christian Science 
(471:29), stands helpless in the sick-room with the 
patient surrounded by devout and expert Christian 
Science practitioners, if outnumbered by opposing 
beliefs on thv outside. Obviously, if these last four 
quotations are statements of truth, Error is the 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

champion and Truth, the invincible, is the van- 
quished. 

Another glaring inconsistency appearing in the 
Christian Science text-book is the confusion of the 
functions of Divine Mind and Mortal Mind. 

All through the book the terms Divine Mind, 
Divine Science and Christian Science are used inter- 
changeably (127:9), and are used to denote infinity 
in knowledge, power and infallibility. Mortal Mind 
is used in a sense diametrically opposite. It is 
described as the source of all error, distress, disease 
and impotency. 

592 : 3. "It is the opposite of spirit, hence the 
opposite of God." 

174:30. "The cause of disease obtains therein." 

274:17. 'The five (futile) senses are but mani- 
fest beliefs thereof." 

Though the source of all confusion, error and 
disease, it is said that 

228: 5. "Nothing inharmonious can enter it." 

459 : 12. "Any attempt to heal with erring mor- 
tal mind, ... is like arming a maniac with a sharp 
knife and turning him loose in a crowded street." 

Reader, did you know that mortal mind, the 
personification of the evil spirit and all that is bad, 
just as God is the embodiment of all that is good 
— this Mortal Mind is the exclusive custodian of 
the body, furnishes the sole motive power for the 
diaphragm and cardiac muscles which keep the 
heart and lungs in action while volition is sus- 
pended by sleep? So-called Christian Science so 
states. We quote: 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

187: 13. "The valves of the heart obey the man- 
date of mortal mind as directly as does the hand, 
moved evidently by the will." 

220:30. "Mortal mind forms all the conditions 
of the body, controls the stomach, lungs, bones, 
heart and blood as directly as volition moves the 
hand." 

422: 18. "The changes which go on (are sug- 
gested or inaugurated) in mortal mind serve to 
reconstruct the body." 

402 : 14. "Mortal mind constructs the body of 
its own materials." 

Then the statement that God formed the human 
body is a mistake. Not only are the energy and 
materials requisite to the original creation of the 
human body all furnished solely by mortal mind ; 
but also those necessary for its reconstruction and 
recuperation when disabled, depleted and exhausted. 
They are all furnished by Mortal Mind, which is, 
in the text-book of the cult, denned as "Nothing, 
claiming to be something ; mythology ; the opposite 
of spirit, therefore the opposite of God ; sin ; sick- 
ness : death." (See 591:25 to 592:10.) 

But for the student of natural science who has 
given but a superficial consideration to the tenets 
of this peculiar cult, perhaps the greatest surprise is 
yet in store. One of the most positively asserted 
and universally emphasized claims of Christian 
Science is its superior system of morals inherent in 
doctrine and exemplified in its votaries. Its liter- 
ature, from the theses of its Great High Priestess 
to the contributions of its most inexperienced 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

neophyte, will be found bristling with variant 
phases of this claim. 

The writer of these pages does not believe this 
claim is sustained. 

He does believe that Christian Science contains 
the germs of a system which, if carried to its 
legitimate results, will tend to destroy the very 
bulwarks which modern society has erected against 
social impurity. 

305 : 13. "Gender is a quality, a characteristic of 
mortal mind, not matter." 

508:13. "Gender consists of Mind, not matter." 

These statements might seem a little indefinite 
were it not for the fact that the text-book teaches, 
as we have already shown, that in disease, dis- 
ability and dismemberment the structural condition 
of the human body is due solely to the mental atti- 
tude which we assume thereto. With this fact 
in mind we are amply justified in assuming that 
it is here also meant that gender or sex is 
dependent on metal attitude rather than structural 
conformity. 

What can be more destructive of sex modesty 
than the idea that sex consists simply of the 
attitude which we mentally assume rather than a 
structural difference? 

But Christian Science also teaches that the 
organs of sex are unnecessary for the preservation 
of the human race. 

From 302:32 to 303:8 we learn through a 
somewhat ambiguous statement that reproduction in 
Christian Science is by Spirit, not matter; and we 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

might suppose ihat it was restricted to spiritual 
things were it not so reiterated as to forbid such 
restriction. 

531 : 32. "Did God first create one man, Adam, 
and then require the union of the sexes to create 
the rest of the human race? No." 

In an argument to prove the falsity of Gen. 3 : 
11, 12, the author says: 

533:16. "According to this belief, the rib taken 
from Adam's side has grown into an evil mind 
named zvoman, who aids man to make sinners more 
rapidly than he could alone." 

Sex, then, is an illusion, a myth, a mental fig- 
ment ; it bears no relation to propagation, and hence 
is charged with no function of utility. This being 
true, perversion of sex becomes impossible. It can 
not possibly bring evil physical consequences, for 
disease and disability are illusions, unrealities ; nor 
can it involve sin, for that is an illusion, an unre- 
ality which man is incapable of committing. 

480 : 19. "God could never make man capable 
of sin." 

472:26. "The only reality of sin, sickness and 
death is the awful fact that unrealities seem real 
to human belief." 

They are all superinduced by, dependent on and 
inseparable from belief — mental attitude. 184:6. 
Change the mental attitude (belief), and the sin 
or malady is gone. For 

385:29. "The opposite belief (mental attitude) 
would produce the opposite result." 

Therefore, if a thing appears sinful, all that is 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

necessary is change of mental attitude — assume the 
attitude of belief in its unreality. 

This is the Christian Science way of curing dis- 
ease, and 

406:3. "Sin and sickness are both healed by the 
same principle." 

404 : 27. "Healing the sick and reforming the 
sinner are one and the same in Christian Science. 
Both cures require the same method, and insepara- 
ble in Truth." 

Reader, are these the basic principles on which 
to erect the superstructure of social purity? Surely 
not. On the contrary, they sweep away every 
social, physical and spiritual bulwark which Virtue 
can erect for her own defense. 

That so-called Christian Scientists are, in gen- 
eral, immodest, lewd or unchaste, the writer of 
these pages does not pretend to assert; for he has 
no data from which to draw such conclusion with 
any degree of certainty. 

But should some new prophet arise who is dis- 
posed to lay special emphasis on this peculiar phase 
of Christian Science didactics, the foregoing prop- 
ositions would furnish a powerful and plausible 
weapon with which to beat down the forces which 
stand for social purity. 

That this most unwholesome and insidious doc- 
trine should be kept out of prominence during the 
formative period of public sentiment as to the merit 
of the cult tenets is but natural. All religious 
societies refrain from emphasizing their vicious and 
objectionable features till such numerical strength 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

has been attained as will encourage a defiance of 
public sentiment. 

A most glaring inconsistency of Christian 
Science is obvious in its attitude toward the Bible. 
In theory it pretends to be based on, and in perfect 
harmony with, its prophecy, its history and its 
didactics. 

497 : 3. "As adherents to truth, we take the 
inspired word of the Bible as our sufficient guide 
to eternal life." 

In practice, however, it denounces a part thereof 
as deliberate falsehood. 

521 : 26. "The second chapter of Genesis con- 
tains a statement, . . . which is the exact opposite 
of Truth." 

523 : 6. "The lie claims to be truth, when pre- 
senting the exact opposite of Truth." Other parts 
are described as being 

522:24. "Based on some hypothesis of error." 

Chapter is arrayed against chapter, and verse 
against verse, as being in direct antagonism to each 
other. 

522:3. "The Science of the first (chapter of 
Genesis) proves the incorrectness of the second, 
for they are antagonistic." 

Still other parts are assailed with a sarcastic 
humor unexcelled by a Renan, a Voltaire or a 
Paine. 

531 : 32. "Did God create one man unaided, but 
afterward require the union of the sexes to create 
the rest of the human family? No." 

533:16. "According to this belief a rib taken 

124 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

from Adam's side has grown to an evil mind named 
woman, who aids man to make sinners more rapidly 
than he could alone." 

And finally, it denies the death of Jesus Christ, 
which constitutes the foundation — the chief corner- 
stone — on which the whole superstructure of modern 
Christianity rests. 

44 : 28. "His disciples believed Jesus dead while 
he was hidden in the sepulchre; whereas he was 
alive." 

46 : 2. "They saw him after his crucifixion, and 
learned that he had not died." 

Every book of the Old Testament, with the 
inerrant finger of prophecy in fact, figure and sym- 
bol, points forward to the vicarious death of the 
world's Messiah. The first four books of the New 
Testament present the cotemporary history of its 
preparation and consummation; and all the others 
point backward to that one superlative fact with 
all the infallible precision of a magnetic needle to 
the pole. 

Yet so-called Christian Science arrogantly and 
unblushingly denies this fact of all facts, without 
which modern Christianity is as impotent and as 
purposeless as is the derelict in mid-ocean amidst 
the blackness of night and the fury of storm with- 
out rudder, chart or compass. 

Reader, have we sustained our indictment against 
Christian Science as being in gross and irrecon- 
cilable conflict with its own precept and practice? 
We arraign her and charge her with being guilty 
on the following counts: 

125 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

1. Denying the existence of Matter, while using 
it in perfect confidence as the sole receptacle for 
her sacred oracles. In the form of type, paper, 
ink and leather, Matter constitutes the exclusive 
custodian of the Christian Science doctrines, and 
no one questions her fidelity to the trust of keeping 
them intact. 

2. Asserting the absolute futility of the five 
senses, though making them the exclusive vehicles 
for disseminating its doctrines in the confident 
assurance that this duty will be faithfully and iner- 
rantly performed. 

Also in yielding implicit obedience to their 
mandates and suggestion as readily as do those 
who assert their absolute integrity. 

3. Asserting the illusive character, the unre- 
ality of sin, while its adherents transgress the 
divine, the natural and the municipal laws with 
the same facility and as little compunction as do 
others. 

4. Asserting that the only reality in disease and 
disability consists of the belief therein, they persist 
in suffering the penalty while repudiating the belief. 
In practice they thus assert the effect while denying 
the only adequate cause. 

5. Asserting that death is an illusion, super- 
induced by, dependent on and inseparable from a 
belief in its reality ; hence it is powerless over those 
who refuse to acknowledge its power. They are 
all, however, forced to yield to its claims, though 
at the same time refusing to acknowledge its 
potency. In practice they concede the reality of 



IS IT CONSISTENT? 

that which in theory they believe to be unreal. 

6. It claims to constitute a divinely appointed 
and infallible system for the cure of every human 
ill of body, mind and character; easy to be learned 
and applied without difficulty; yet it declines to 
give public demonstrations or show a single case 
of a substantial malady where causation was log- 
ically traced between treatment and recovery. Nor 
is it shown that they who know and practice this 
infallible system suffer less from disease than those 
who are ignorant thereof, and hence do not observe 
its requirements. 

7. Denouncing all material means of treatment 
as both futile and dangerous, it shows them to 
be equal in some cases to its own divinely infallible 
system, and superior thereto in others. 

8. Asserting the exclusively divine character of 
the healing process, and the futility of all human 
means, it enjoins on its practitioners the duty of 
exacting tribute from its patrons for invoking and 
directing forces over which it has no control. 

9. Professing to be based on, and in perfect 
harmony with, the Bible, it denounces some of its 
teachings as error, some as unblushing falsehood, 
and devitalizes the remainder by an insidious and 
plausibly arranged emasculative interpretation. And 
finally 

10. It claims an exclusive superiority for its 
system of morals, although it has equipped the 
assailant of social purity with a ready and powerful 
weapon of refutation against every plea which 
Virtue may invoke in her own defense. 



CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF REASON 

Which one of these counts have we failed to 
sustain by evidence so overwhelmingly preponderant 
as to exclude even the possibility of a doubt? And 
every item of that evidence is taken from the lips 
and pen of the Great Founder, Prophet, Priestess 
and Oracle of the cult itself. 

Jury of the Vicinage, what is your verdict? 
Guilty or not guilty? 

THE END. 



12S 



Deacidrfied using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOH 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



.82 u 






\4 



m 



^M 



